The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, before business begins, may I take the opportunity to inform the House that I will be undertaking a ministerial visit to Birmingham on Thursday 29 January? Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

Speed Cameras

Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What steps they are taking to ensure that road and police authorities follow the guidelines that speed cameras are employed conspicuously only on dangerous stretches of road.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, speeding is dangerous. Driving too fast often results in crashes, deaths and injuries. The purpose of safety cameras is to encourage compliance with speed limits and thus reduce the number of people killed and injured on our roads. Guidance to safety camera partnerships about the deployment and operation of the cameras is issued by the Department for Transport and is based on this requirement. The department ensures that the performance of the partnerships is monitored with particular regard to casualty reduction. The results are published annually.

Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Is he aware that such steps would do a great deal more to dispel the myth and dispel the feeling of motorists that they are the victims of a persecution to raise money? Is the noble Lord aware that a complaint was made yesterday in another place and that the Minister said that a lot of the speed cameras already in position would be removed?
	Will he write to me or publish by 1 April the reduction that has been brought about by this policy? Does he also agree that the old adage of "keep your eyes on the road when you are driving" should not become "keep one eye on the speedometer and one on the camera"?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I am not sure that I will be able to recall all the points that have been made, but I shall identify one or two that are of some significance. The most recent research shows that over the last couple of years there has been about a 35 per cent reduction in deaths and serious injuries on those stretches of road on which there are speed cameras. I entirely accept, as do the Government, that it is important that speed cameras should be deployed, against a set of criteria, where they are most effective. That is to do with reducing casualties. It is nothing to do with increasing revenues. The aim is road safety.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the guidelines are now set at such a high level that it is almost impossible to deploy a speed camera? In fact, in the county that I represent, only one speed camera site has been identified in the past year. In view of the fact that at the same time road casualties rose to 65 from 37 the year before, will the Government please do something effective and announce a road safety policy that will deal with these road deaths?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I think that we all know that a significant number of cameras were put up before the criteria were introduced, and some of those cameras are being withdrawn because they do not meet the terms of the criteria. None the less, we still have some cameras in what I would describe as legacy situations. In some cases, the number of deaths and injuries has been reduced, thank God, and in those cases it would probably be sensible to continue to deploy cameras to ensure that the number stayed on the low side, rather than went up again.
	In some cases, we find that local head teachers make a special plea to the police to install a camera temporarily, in order to look after the children for whom they are responsible. They see that there are real threats and dangers. I assure the noble Lord that it is important to make sure that we use cameras in a way that secures people's safety.

Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the policy of the chief constable of Durham constabulary is not to use fixed speed cameras and, in fact, there has been no measurable increase in road deaths?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I have read about that point in newspaper articles. Chief police officers, in this case acting through the chief constable of Thames Valley—who I think, in a general sense, has overall responsibility for this—made the point that the reduction by 35 per cent—the figure that I quoted just a while ago—is a very significant change. I cannot tell whether there are specific factors at work in Durham that might buck this trend. A 35 per cent change seems to be a huge gain—think of the lives saved and the injuries that are not occasioned, particularly to children.

Viscount Astor: My Lords, of course, I always obey the instructions of policemen, even former policemen. Is the Minister aware that new SPECS speed cameras have recently been introduced on the M6? The noble Lord will know that they automatically register the average speed of a car travelling between two points. If that car is travelling at over 78 miles per hour, they automatically issue a ticket, without any form of human intervention to the driver. As these new cameras are now hidden in the electronic signs on the M6, how do they comply with the Government's guidelines?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I shall certainly look at the issue of the extent to which compliance or non-compliance occurs. It is plainly policy, and I accept the point that cameras should be visible. That itself is conducive to greater safety. If people are complaining that they are being caught driving far too fast—by cameras, or any other efficient and more scientific means—they should perhaps think that there is no ancient English right to speed and kill people.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, given the very impressive 35 per cent reduction in accidents that has been achieved by the use of cameras, according to my noble friend, will he confirm that cameras are more effective than road humps at slowing down traffic and improving safety? Is it possible for local authorities to use cameras rather than road humps in the interests of ambulances and other emergency service vehicles, which find the humps difficult to cope with?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I thank my noble friend. I was almost tempted to comment on the road humps in the area where I live and their baleful effect on my car, but I shall forbear. I am not aware of differential statistical evidence on the efficacy of the different means of traffic calming, as it is called these days; it probably would be worth looking at it. But I suppose—it is no more than a supposition—that road humps are often deployed at frequent intervals on roads where it would not be particularly effective, or perhaps possible in some cases, to site cameras, so the comparisons may not be the best scientifically. None the less, it must be right to test the different methods applied and to ensure that the most effective methods to increase security and safety are available and used.

Lord Geddes: My Lords, in his reply to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, the Minister referred to some cameras still being in legacy situations. If that is so and they do not adhere to the guidelines, would not the answer be simply to disarm them and not to insert a film?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I cannot say how many legacy cameras contain films at present. But, where anybody believes that cameras are in use that do not comply with the criteria, I simply appeal to them to present that evidence so that it can be acted upon.

Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I recognise that reducing speed will obviously reduce the number of accidents, but is there any evidence of accidents occurring when drivers brake sharply when approaching a camera?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I am not aware of research that shows that. I have seen some research evidence that, where you get streams of cars passing cameras, every driver tends to slow down to the same average speed. I do not think that there is research on drivers braking sharply and causing accidents. I suspect that if there were any significant incidence of that, there would have been significant research to investigate it. That is my hunch, but I shall make further investigations of the research literature to see whether that hunch is true.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, why should anybody worry about speed cameras if they are not breaking the law? Surely the answer is to have more speed cameras to catch those who break the law.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I am sure that that is absolutely right. The aim must be to get people to drive in a serious and sensible way within speed limits and with some consciousness of their obligations to the rest of the community.

Ofsted: Schools in Special Measures

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have any explanation for the rise in the number of schools placed in special measures by Ofsted.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, following extensive consultations, Ofsted introduced a new inspection framework last September. It is more precise and gives inspectors clearer guidance. The downward trend in special measures since 1997 was reversed last term. That may not be a permanent change but is possibly caused by the increased precision in inspection under the new framework. None the less, special measures judgments represent only about 2 per cent of all inspections.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. She has identified the issue of the introduction of the new inspection framework. The difficulty for schools is that, the rules having changed, they are now confronted with being judged by a different set of rules, and comparisons cannot be made. Does the Minister not feel that it is tough for schools previously regarded as having special weaknesses that have done their best to remedy them and would have moved out of that position under the old rules, but which are now hit by being put into special measures? Is it not a great disincentive to such schools to improve their performance?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, as I said in my Answer, Ofsted carried out extensive consultation before introducing the new framework, so it came as no surprise to schools to see the new framework in operation. I am delighted that the amount of time that schools spend in special measures is decreasing. The amount of time has decreased substantially for both secondary schools and primary schools. It is clear that if you wish to ensure standards you need a solid and precise inspection framework, and I believe that this provides that.

Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some schools that have been awarded beacon status or made specialist colleges by the Government have been put in special measures by Ofsted? Either the Government are wrong about the quality of a school in that position, or Ofsted is. Which is it?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, it is not a question of either being wrong. When you introduce a more robust framework, it is possible that schools that previously would not have been in special measures would be now. A school may now go into special measures, for example, if it has around 10 per cent of unsatisfactory teaching compared with 20 per cent in the past. Equally, there are higher expectations of school leadership and management, all designed to raise standards for children and all to be welcomed.

Lord Dearing: My Lords, in view of the importance of good inspection to the well-being of education and in the light of what her colleague has said about the Green Paper proposing further substantial changes to the framework of inspection, will the noble Baroness consult the usual offices to see whether we might debate that Green Paper on the Floor of the House?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, it is always open to noble Lords to table a Motion for debate. Perhaps I may suggest that the noble Lord would be doing the House a kindness were he to do so in order that we might debate the issue.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, can the Minister assure us that the cause of these seeming failures is not inadequacies in school budgets? What link is there between schools going into special measures and local authorities which have been particularly hard hit by the funding problems last year? Can the Minister give an assurance that the increasingly tight budgets being imposed on local authorities resulting in staffing cutbacks will not cause another rush of schools going into special measures?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, we have seen no geographical or any other kind of trend here, and we are working on the basis of evidence gathered over one term. We have no evidence that this is related to school funding levels or staffing shortages. We shall reflect on the impact of any changes as we watch to see whether or not a trend does unfold.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, does the Minister agree with the view expressed by Professor Joe Elliott, chair of educational psychology at the University of Sunderland, that UK pupils are probably the worst behaved in the world? If she thinks that there is any truth in the statement, will she say what needs to be done to ensure that good teaching gets across to pupils rather than being deterred by bad behaviour?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I do not know the work of Professor Elliott and I am not sure what to say about the supposition that we have the worst behaved pupils in the world. That is not my experience as an education Minister. We have debated before in your Lordships' House the issue of behaviour in schools and it is extremely important, but I believe that the vast majority of pupils behave well and that the vast majority of teachers teach extremely well. It is important to ensure, within the Ofsted framework, that we have strong leadership and high quality teaching, and that we address issues of bad behaviour where they are evident in schools.

Lord Northbourne: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that what lies behind the question put by my noble friend Lady Howe is that perhaps there is room to offer more help to parents to ensure that their children are supported in school, that they come into school ready to be educated and that while there they are supported and encouraged?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, we are slightly wide of the Question, but I would be delighted to debate at any point in your Lordships' House issues surrounding parenting, about which I know that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, are very passionate—with good reason. It is important that we support parents and that is why a key element of the Sure Start programme is to support the parents of young children, as well as ensuring that schools engage with communities and with the parents of their pupils.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that there must be something significant about the fact that she was not able to respond with a lusty and firm denial to the point put to her by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, there is nothing significant about that whatsoever.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, is the Minister right to say that we have evidence from only one term on this issue? Figures cited in the Times Educational Supplement relate to the whole year of 2002–03 and show a very sharp upturn in the number of schools being put into special measures compared with the downward trend of the preceding five years.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am relating the inspection regime that has been brought in with the rate of increase. Between 1997 and 2002–03 the numbers decreased from 557 to 347. However, we are looking specifically at the new framework and at the rise in the number of schools going into special measures to see whether there is a causal or correlative effect.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, once schools have been designated, why are they now spending less time in special measures?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am delighted to say that it is because of the impact of the work done with schools to ensure that they are given the kind of resources and support to enable them to turn around. I would cite initiatives such as the Leadership Incentive Grant which are used to support schools in their teaching, leadership and management, enabling them to raise their standards as quickly as possible.

Lord Tombs: My Lords, is the Minister aware that schools are very concerned about the inconsistency in inspection standards, whereby a school which is given a good report for one year and has steadily improving results may be abruptly placed into special measures with a limited explanation? Security is an essential part of developing a school and I would suggest that the inspection service is not adequately providing that security. Perhaps the Minister would like to consider establishing an inspectorate for the inspectors.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, if a registered inspector judges that special measures are needed in a school, Her Majesty's Inspectorate always inspects again to ratify the judgment to ensure that it was correct.

European Union: UK Veto

Lord Howell of Guildford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the "red lines", as described by the Prime Minister, maintaining the veto in European Union procedures on specified areas of vital national interest, have been agreed with other member states.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said last December in another place that in an IGC,
	"nothing is agreed until everything is agreed".—[Official Report, Commons, 15/12/03; col. 1320.]
	On 10 December I said in this House that,
	"there has been no formal agreement on any single point of the draft treaty. That is for heads of state or governments by common accord at the European Council".—[Official Report, 10/12/03; col. 821.]
	It is now for the Irish presidency to build on the progress made under the Italians.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. Does she recall that the Prime Minister also said that:
	"The truth of the matter is that there is nearly a consensus on those issues in favour of the British position".—[Official Report, Commons, 15/12/03; col. 1327.]?
	On what did he base that? Has not Mr Ahern said since that nothing has been agreed, or was it just a question of reassurances given by Mr Berlusconi at the IGC meeting? Now that the constitution is about to be resurrected and retabled, which I along with many others in all parties regard as a huge mistake, is it not important to have the truth and accuracy of this statement nailed down so that we know where we stand and from where we are starting?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we know where we stand. The noble Lord will recollect that on 10 December last we had a long debate in your Lordships' House. I, too, said very clearly that until everything is agreed, nothing is agreed. During the course of discussions near consensus was reached on a number of points, but that is not a final agreement. I am sure that the noble Lord will recall from his own days in office that during the course of negotiations there will be points at which near consensus is reached, but that within the overall framework it is understood by everyone that until the final point of agreement is reached, nothing is finally agreed.

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that the principle of "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" has always been the basis on which international treaty negotiations take place? There is nothing new in that. Does she further agree that if we really want to make a major contribution to the issues of substance, this House should fully support the issues on which the Prime Minister had expressed his "red lines" because they include a number of matters regarded as fundamental to this country, including the right to negotiate international treaties and, among other important issues, questions of national taxation?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, of course I can agree with my noble friend. He has expressed the point I sought to put to the noble Lord opposite whose memory seems a little short on these points. There is nothing different about the way this is being negotiated. It is how the Single European Act and the Maastricht Treaty were negotiated; that is the nature of international negotiations.
	On the question of the "red lines", the Prime Minister has made it clear that the United Kingdom will continue to pursue the draft treaty—if the Irish are able to bring it back; which is a matter to be decided at the March meeting—and that the "red lines" will still be in place.

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, may I proffer to the Minister the wisdom of an old Scottish saying? I do so as a generalisation and with no personal imputation: "Fools and bairns should not see half-done work". Does she agree with my view that the vital national interest of this country and that of all other participating countries would be met by acknowledging that no great departure from the draft treaty agreed by the convention should be advanced?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as regards the noble Lord's last point, that is a matter for the Irish Government to pursue. I understand that they are taking soundings at the moment. Some preliminary soundings were made yesterday. The formal position is that they will return with a report on the outcome of those soundings at the meeting due to take place towards the end of March.
	With respect to the old Scottish saying, as a good Welsh woman I take note of it but am bound to observe that we proceed now on the basis of giving as much exposure as we reasonably can to the negotiations. Your Lordships have appreciated the way in which we have been able to consult fairly openly on what has been happening during the negotiations.

Lord Marlesford: My Lords, in view of the Minister's statement that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed", can she explain the words in the Italian presidency's final declaration on the outcome of the IGC, when it was said that the IGC has "resulted in a text which will henceforth be considered as a negotiating acquis not open to further discussion"?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the question of the status of the text has now passed into the ambit of the discussions that the Irish are having. I have made clear to your Lordships that soundings are being taken on that at the moment. The fact is that by common consensus in dealing with treaties for many years, this treaty is being treated no differently. Until the ink is dry and the final agreement is reached, nothing is formally and finally agreed. That has been stated over and over again. The Prime Minister has stated it. We had a lengthy debate in your Lordships' House. I believe that we will have the pleasure of another lengthy debate very shortly. I am sure that the same points will be reached and the same answer will be given.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that while many of us fully accept that our key British interests have to be defended in this text, we would be very happy to hear the Government talking more broadly about European interests as well as British interests? Did the Minister see in yesterday's Financial Times, Philip Stephens's comment that President Chirac was thought to have suspected our Prime Minister of wanting to take over the leadership of Europe? Some of us rather wish that he would wish to do so.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, when I see these wonderful speculative articles about who might have said what to whom in our press, particularly on matters European, my eyes tend to slide rapidly down the page. However, the Prime Minister has made it clear that the "red lines" are there, but, as we know, that some good issues have come out of the discussions that we have had so far. We remain in good heart and hope that our friends in the Irish presidency will be able to take the issue forward. What matters is what happens between the countries of the European Union, not the speculation in our newspapers about the particular ambitions of particular leaders.

Lord Renton: My Lords, having been for three years Recorder of Guildford and second citizen, perhaps I may do the hat trick by asking whether the Prime Minister will bear in mind that it is not merely specified areas of the United Kingdom that are of vital national interest, but the whole country?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, of course the whole country is a matter of vital national interest. We are looking at the specific areas around retaining unanimity for treaty change and other areas, such as tax, social security, defence and criminal procedure law. The Prime Minister has pinpointed those as being the areas of vital national interest for which we will wish to maintain unanimity in the context of our European negotiations.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I have to add energy to the vital national interests that the Minister has just enunciated. Of course, I accept that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" in normal negotiations. I think that it is important to have this on the record: is the Minister reassuring us that the "red lines" issues—the four that she has mentioned and the one that I have added, and there may be others—have been generally agreed or are nearly at consensus, and that, therefore, there will be no more argument or attempt to breach them by any member state? Is that what she is saying?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: No, my Lords, that is not what I am saying. Try as the noble Lord may to get me ensnared in this particular point, that is not what I am saying. I do not honestly believe that, although it was a very good try, the noble Lord thinks that that was what I was saying.

Social Security Benefits

Lord Higgins: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What contingency plans exist to ensure that tax credits and other social security benefits are paid on time in the event of industrial action by the officials responsible.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, our priority is to maintain services to our clients. We are confident that we can run a near-normal service and that payments will be issued as usual for benefits, pension credit and child support. Payments of tax credits are made by the Inland Revenue and would not be affected.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that Answer and for confirming that tax credits and the Inland Revenue are not affected. However, is it not the case that the transfer of responsibility for some payments to the Inland Revenue is already causing problems? The Inland Revenue has always been rather better at collecting money than paying it out. Having paid out too much money, it is now clawing it back with excessive enthusiasm and causing considerable distress.
	As regards the areas affected by the proposed industrial action, which I understand include benefit offices, pension offices and so forth, people may manage for a day or two, but what plans do the Government have to ensure that payments are made if industrial action were to take place over a matter of, say, weeks rather than days?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, if the House will allow me, it may be worth mentioning those who could not be affected by virtue of payment methods. First, it is worth emphasising that more than 55 per cent of those receiving benefit payments—around 20 million benefit payments are made each week—are on direct payment. Therefore, they are paid automatically into their bank accounts and will not be affected. A further third—mainly pensioners—receive order books that are rolled out automatically and, therefore, are not affected. Of the remaining one-fifth or thereabouts—mostly people on JSA and paid by giro—if they cannot sign on, they will be paid as though they had signed on.
	My understanding is that the only people who could be affected in the event of sustained industrial action, which I very much hope will not occur, would be those brand new clients seeking jobseeker's allowance for the first time: that is, a client may turn up at his or her local office, and it is closed, and the management are not be able to put in alternative staff, and the office is in a sufficiently isolated rural area where the client could not go to an alternative office. That scenario is very unlikely. We had industrial action between September 2002 and April 2003. Not one local office was closed and all benefit payments were maintained.

Earl Russell: My Lords, the Minister's objectives are unobjectionable. But what information does she have on the amount of suffering and hardship that may be caused to a claimant by two days' loss of benefit?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the only people who could have a two-day loss of benefit—over and beyond the usual arrangements that we would make for bank holidays, Christmas, snow, or whatever—are those that I identified in isolated rural areas in the event of closure of an office and there being no alternative office for them to go to. Clients in hardship, with dependants or, say, former prisoners, and so forth, could go to the local social services department for emergency payments. That is the fallback. However, I must say that when we had sustained industrial action over six months, that situation did not arise.

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
	Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Rooker.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
	Clause 16 [Local development documents]:

Baroness Maddock: moved Amendment No. 91A:
	Page 9, line 28, at end insert—
	"( ) a strategic planning statement;"

Baroness Maddock: This amendment to Clause 16 concerns local development documents. The aim of the amendment is to formalise the link between the local development framework and the regional spatial strategy, and to ensure that the local development framework takes account of transport, minerals and waste planning functions, which will be carried out by only the higher tier authorities. We believe that it is absolutely essential that local development frameworks bridge the gap between local and strategic planning by preparing a strategic planning statement. This statement should seek to integrate the strategic policies within the regional spatial strategy with the needs and the aspirations of the local community.
	This issue was discussed in another place. When countering a similar amendment there, the Minister referred to the core planning strategy, which will be one of the statutory documents that will make up the development plan. The status of this document is not clear. Guidance and secondary legislation are quite likely to be the chosen ways to introduce this strategy. Many people, including the CPRE and other such groups, are concerned that this strategy will not address the need to bridge the gap between the regional spatial strategy and the local development framework. We would like to see a planning statement. We believe it is essential and that should be given a statutory footing to ensure that it has the status as a key tool in bridging the local and the regional planning issues.
	Given that higher tier authorities are responsible for minerals and waste planning, it is vital that these matters are fully integrated into the local development framework, and that they are not carried out in isolation. I hope the Minister will be convinced at this stage of the need to have this important matter in the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Hanningfield: Our names are added to this amendment. We have discussed the link between these strategies several times during the course of the Bill, and we are going to discuss the issue again. I would like to add our support to what the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, has just said.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said she hoped I had been convinced by her argument. I am not convinced, sadly from her point of view. As I see it, the amendment would add a strategic planning statement as one of the documents that must be specified in the local development scheme as a local development document. The effect of this would be to require every local planning authority to produce a specific statement regarding strategic planning in their area. We think that is unnecessary. It will be covered by requirement that every local planning authority should have a core strategy. This will be set down in Part 2. We do not think that we should require every local planning authority to produce yet another planning document, especially if it is unnecessary. In this case it clearly is unnecessary.
	As the noble Baroness anticipated, the core strategy will set out the strategic objectives and the key elements of the planning framework for its area. After all, the core strategy is the central document in providing a link with the strategic regional policy set out in the regional spatial strategy and local planning policies. It is a requirement that the core strategy, along with other local development documents, should be in general conformity with the regional spatial strategy. The core strategy, in providing the key strategic link at local level with the regional spatial strategy, will also need to take account of the needs and aspirations of the local community. That is one reason why local planning authorities will have to have regard to the community strategy in preparing its LDDs.
	It is also important that due account is taken of local transport plans. That is why I am proposing local development documents. Local planning authorities will be required to have regard to local transport plans under the regulations made under Part 2. We do not see a value in requiring yet another document when the Bill and regulations will ensure that local planning authorities set out their strategy in a DPD and that the link with the strategic policies in the regional spatial strategy is already there and has been created.
	It is not an essential document; it will not add anything, and in any event this issue can be more and better finessed in the regulations to be made under Part 2. I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment having heard that.

Baroness Maddock: I am somewhat confused by the Minister's logic on this. On the one hand he is saying that the Government do not want an extra document; on the other hand he is saying that this document will actually be there and it will be called the core planning strategy, which is what I talked about in my opening statement.
	The whole point of what I was saying is to make sure that it is on the face of the Bill. The Minister has just argued for not having a document which, as far as I can see, local authorities will have to have in any event. I listened to what he said and at this stage of the Bill I beg leave to withdraw the amendment but I am sure we will return to this.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 91B:
	Page 9, line 33, leave out "(however expressed)"

Baroness Hamwee: This takes us to an expression which we have already debated: the term "however expressed" as applied in this case to the authorities' policies in Clause 16(3). This was tabled before we debated another amendment in the context of regional spatial strategies, but it seemed to me helpful to ask one or two more questions about it.
	When we debated what the term means earlier in the Bill, the Minister confirmed that it did not mean—I think I use his words correctly—"policy by mouth". He described the limitations in the context of Part 1, which deals with regional spatial strategies. Reading his explanation, it seems that it was more about what is meant by "spatial" than what is meant by the term "however expressed".
	The Minister in the Commons said on the same amendment:
	"the phrase . . . is necessary to get beyond the land use development and control elements of the documents and to gain the wider spatial dimension".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee G, 16/1/03; col. 218.]
	I wonder if the Minister could expand on that, because I am not entirely sure that I understand it. I can see that Mr McNulty might have had a point, but how one gets from there to "however expressed" I still find a little difficult. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm what this means and what it does not mean in the context of this part of the Bill.
	I wonder too whether he can confirm the precedent that was referred to in our earlier debate, which Hansard records, as paragraph 17(3) of Schedule 2, part 2, to the 1990 Act. I do not think that that can be correct—or perhaps it was too late and I was not seeing straight when I tried to find the words in that part of the 1990 Act. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I do not think that there is much more I can add to what was said when we debated this on Clause 1. I do not see too much point in repeating the arguments. This expression is not uncommon in legislation. The noble Baroness said that she could not find it. She should be looking at paragraph 17(3) of part 2 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. I think the noble Baroness said Schedule 3.

Baroness Hamwee: Part 2.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Part 2, Schedule 2. My noble friend Lord Rooker tells me that the noble Baroness said part 3. That is where it is found. It is not an uncommon expression in legislation. Our view is that deleting it, as the amendment suggests—and I do not think the noble Baroness wants it deleted—would limit the scope of local development documents to those traditional policies delivered through the planning permissions process.
	I thought that we had clarified that for the noble Baroness. Regrettably, it appears that that is not the case. There is nothing else to be said. I thought that I had made our position clear.

Lord Avebury: As, apparently, it causes difficulty to look up the provision in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, will the Minister kindly tell the Committee the context in which the words were used in that provision? Will he simply read out the provisions of paragraph 17(3) of the schedule that he has just mentioned? That would be helpful.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I would love to be able to do exactly as the noble Lord asks, but I have not got the context with me. I shall probably have to drop the noble Lord a note, which I shall share with both opposition Front Benches or anybody else who is particularly concerned about that issue or the words as they are printed in the Bill.

Lord Tordoff: It may well be common usage in legislation, but we have still not heard from the noble Lord what it means.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I made it plain at the outset that we gave an interpretation in our previous debate. I do not see much point in going over old ground. I am sorry that the noble Lord will not be happy with that answer, but that is the case.

Baroness Hamwee: I wonder whether I should weary the Committee with paragraph 17(3), which, as I read it, says:
	"This paragraph shall not be construed as enabling any objections to be made to any part of a unitary development plan which consists of provisions of a local plan that are not subject to alterations as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)".
	I am not trying to undo what is here; I am genuinely trying to answer the question that my noble friend Lord Tordoff put. I would welcome more assistance after this stage. If I may say so on a point that has been made and, I am sure, will continue to be made, whatever precedents there are, if the term bears explanation and bears fleshing out in the legislation, it will make the legislation easier to follow. I am not suggesting that it is the only precedent that can be found, but it is the only precedent quoted. The fact that it is buried in a schedule to the 1990 Act makes my point for me.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Is the noble Baroness concerned that the expression is loose and woolly and enables things to be made up as one goes along? If it is, I am sure that we could clarify the point for the noble Baroness with a note. If that is the worry, I am sure that we can get to the root of it quite simply.

Baroness Hamwee: I think that I said in the previous debate that I was not sure whether we were talking about policies "however expressed" or "wherever expressed". The clause says:
	"The local development documents must . . . set out the authority's policies".
	That is a very broad term. I know that we have talked about having regard—if that is the right term—to the community strategy and so on, but any local authority will have an enormous set of policies, and the authority's policies "however expressed" are to be taken as read into the development documents. It is both issues. What makes up a policy? What document does it need to be a policy? I accept that it should not be policy by word of mouth. What document incorporates the policies? Are we talking about an authority's policies in the round with regard to all its functions and activities?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I shall try to clarify. We are talking about documented policies and the policies that are set out in the local development document. That is about as clear as we can be, and I hope that that helps the noble Baroness. If there is still a problem, we will produce a note that expresses the situation more perfectly.

Baroness Hamwee: The precedent would be helpful. I shall not pursue the point this afternoon. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 91C not moved.]

Lord Lucas: moved Amendment No. 92:
	Page 9, line 34, at end insert—
	"( ) All the local development documents taken together are to be regarded as the "development plan" for the purposes of section 54A of the principal Act."

Lord Lucas: The thing about Committee stage is that one can start with the answer and move on to questions as necessary. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: That is a nice precedent, and I am happy to comply with it.
	Amendment No. 92 raises two important points. The first is whether local planning will be more effective if local planning authorities are restricted to preparing local development documents that are part of the development plan. The second is what the legislation for the development plan and the plan-led system will be under the new arrangements.
	We think that our approach to the new planning arrangements is a practical one. It maintains the plan-led system, and it will ensure that the most important policies, including any site allocations, are in a development plan document and are, therefore, part of the development plan. It is also useful, as I said in an earlier debate, for local planning authorities to be able to prepare local development documents that are not part of the development plan. The official title of such documents is "supplementary planning documents". They will be able to expand on the policies in the development plan documents that established the initial policy framework. The supplementary planning documents will be faster to produce, and the procedures will be simpler. The difference is that there will be no independent examination. That was the key distinction between the two, as I explained with regard to another amendment.
	We hope that local planning authorities will be able to respond more quickly to local needs and changes, via the supplementary planning documents, and fill in the finer points for action in smaller areas already identified in the development plan documents. They will cover diverse issues and can be in different formats, as the local planning authority wants. They could be, for example, practical advice notes, design briefs and other details on policy to assist developers and the community; they could be that kind of explanatory note. It is unrealistic to think that a local planning authority will not produce material beyond the development plan, the one that has been subject to independent examination. It will want to produce other "daughter documents", if you like, by way of explanation. They will be supplementary planning documents.
	Everything must be clear and understandable, as the documents are there to help the public. The whole thing could be packaged together in the same loose-leaf folder-type arrangement, with two documents—the development plan and the supplementary planning documents. That is why I ask the noble Lord not to pursue the amendment. It will assist planning authorities to have the capacity to produce those other documents.

Lord Lucas: I found that immensely helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 93 had been retabled as Amendment No. 91C.]

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 93A:
	Page 10, line 3, leave out subsection (7).

Baroness Hamwee: I shall neither speak to nor move Amendment No. 93B. Amendment No. 93A would leave out subsection (7), which is another reference to regulations. The purpose of the amendment is not to oppose regulations, but we suggest that the definition of local development documents that are local plan documents and details of their form, content and production should be in the Bill, not in secondary legislation. At any rate, I wish to understand better than I have been able to so far what is meant by subsection (7).
	At the moment, each local planning authority has a single development plan. In the future, we are looking at a package that will differ between authorities. Not every item will have the status of a development plan document. In Committee in the Commons, the Minister said that it was essential for the Secretary of State to have the power to make regulations to define which local development documents were local development plans to get a common standard among local authorities on form, content and timing. I have tabled the amendment to tease that out. I am unclear about what is meant by "content". It cannot mean the detail of the content—otherwise one would have exactly the same planning system across the whole country, and that would be a nonsense. In committee in the other place, the Minister, Mr McNulty, said:
	"'Form and content' means the formal shape that the documents should take and what should be included in them and it covers headings and sub-headings".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee G, 16/1/03; col. 219.]
	That seems to be more about form than content. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me a little more on that point. I beg to move.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: I should point out to the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 93AA or 93B.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I will describe what the amendments seek to achieve, which I hope will satisfy some of the noble Baroness's curiosity.
	Amendment No. 93A would have the effect of removing the Secretary of State's power to prescribe in regulations which development documents are development plan documents, the form and content of local development documents, and the time at which steps must be taken to prepare those documents. The effect of Amendment No. 93B would be similar. The amendments would remove an important power for the Secretary of State to prescribe in regulation details associated with the identification and preparation of local development documents. In our view, development plan documents need to be separately distinguished. They are local development documents, which need to be independently examined before they are adopted by the local planning authority.
	In order to allow for flexibility in the new system and to meet the need for clear policies, development plan documents may take different forms. Regulations may prescribe which development documents are development plan documents. Each authority must have a core strategy covering 10 or more years. There will be a proposals map, showing which land is to be developed or conserved. Authorities may choose to have one or more area action plan, perhaps showing in greater detail what will happen in areas where there will be much change or which are to be kept as they are. Those will be development plan documents, which, together with the regional spatial strategy for the area, will form the development plan.
	We ask how, without clear criteria, people will know what documents will be examined and what documents will be part of the development plan. For example, we have made it clear that documents dealing with the allocation of land will be development plan documents. It is right that documents that affect property rights should be independently tested.
	Authorities will also be able to set out more details of their main policies or their policies on accessibility or design. The documents to which that provision will apply will not be development plan documents. In the draft regulations we have called them supplementary planning documents, or SPDs. They will not require independent testing. To ensure that those elements are put in place within a reasonable time, each authority will have to prepare and stick to a project plan, setting out what documents it will prepare and a timetable for their preparation. That will be known as a local development scheme.
	The point of having these provisions in the form of regulations is to make clear exactly what is required. Having them in regulations will also ensure that, in the light of experience, we can amend them and provide flexibility. We aim for a light touch in these matters and to provide local authorities with flexibility in creating local development documents. However, it is right, of course, that everyone should know what to expect and that provisions are contained in the Bill to cater exactly for those aims. A good example of that is to make clear what documents are development plan documents.
	In our view, these provisions are necessary for a clear understanding of the new system. Having heard that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Lord Avebury: I suggest to the Minister that because many of the phrases that are said to occur in the regulations do not appear in the parent Act, it would be helpful to have a glossary of terms. In that case, anyone who is unsure as to exactly where the action plans fit into the general scheme could look up the terms in a separate list, instead of having to scrabble through the Bill while the Minister is speaking, only to find that his phraseology does not even appear there because it is in the regulations. I personally would find a glossary very useful.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: On this occasion I am instantly persuaded, not least because in reading through the Bill I have from time to time lost myself in the miasma of the terminology, as I am sure other Members of the Committee have. I shall consider the noble Lord's suggestion with a view to providing a glossary of terms, which I think would be very useful.

Baroness Hamwee: I am grateful to my noble friend. At a previous stage I asked whether the Government would consider engaging someone who knows nothing or next to nothing about the subject to check through whatever is eventually to be made available for the public. A guide to the terminology would be extremely useful. It is not adequate for it to be implied to us, or said to professionals or others outside the House, "If you tried harder, you would be able to understand it".
	The Minister has quite reasonably commented on my amendment. It is my fault that the amendment does not make clearer what troubles me. I shall, of course, read what the Minister has said. I am not sure that it answers my questions. However, I shall not pursue the matter today and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 93AA:
	Page 10, line 4, leave out paragraph (a).

Baroness Hanham: As our discussion has developed, it has become clear that whereas we used to have plain, straightforward documentation within the unitary development plan, and perhaps the accompanying documents, we have a complete mess in relation to development plans and development documents. The Minister has rightly said that we shall need a glossary of terms for the miasma that we are now encountering, which is quite extraordinary. The more questions that we raise about these development plans and documents, the greater the confusion that arises.
	Under this clause I have tabled an amendment—it is not entirely the same as that proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—to leave out paragraph (a), which potentially would cut out a loophole that exists in this legislation. Without this amendment, there is a danger that local authorities' policies set out in their local development documents will be disregarded in the regional spatial strategy or spatial development strategy.
	We have had a good deal of discussion about regulations, and an enormous amount seems to be left to regulations. We will accept those, as long as they describe the form and content of the local development documents and perhaps the timing of the steps and the preparation of such documents. However, we are not willing to accept that the Secretary of State should have the power to decide which local development documents should be included as development plan documents.
	The Secretary of State must make clear on the face of the Bill which documents will make up part of the development plan. As the development plan documents are either the regional spatial strategy or the spatial development strategy, depending on which is being considered, and as the Secretary of State has the power to decide which of the local development documents go to make up the development plan documents, there exists a possibility that the Secretary of State could decide not to include any of the local development documents and thereby discount the policies of the local authority altogether. If the position is as I have described it—I do not say that it is, but it could be—it would be entirely unsatisfactory, and I therefore look forward to the Minister's explanation. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: If the only reason for the amendment is to ensure that the Secretary of State may prescribe none of the documents as local development documents, I may as well sit down. That would be a nonsense. It is not a remote possibility.
	I have referred to the kinds of documents that should be covered in regulations. It is important to classify them as local development plan documents because they will be subject to independent examination. So there can be no equivocation about what is and is not subject to independent examination. What will not be subject to independent examination are the supplementary planning documents to which I referred in the debate on the previous amendment.
	We want to cover the issue in regulations—which is the purpose of this part of the clause—to enable us to deal with changing circumstances and to adapt to them in the light of experience if that is sensible. I had hoped that the explanation given in the notes on clauses would have been satisfactory. There is no prospect of allowing the Secretary of State to pick and choose which local development plans will be the development plan documents; the regulations will set out the categories in advance. That is referred to in subsection (7).
	The Secretary of State will not be allowed to pick and choose but it is important that we should classify the kinds of documents which will be subject to independent examination. If in the light of experience and circumstances we need to change that, it can be done by regulations without having to come back to primary legislation. That is the only purpose for this provision. Honestly, there is no hidden agenda to avoid classifying any of them as development plan documents.

Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for that reply. I still believe that there is a problem in not having the local development documents on the face of the Bill. If the regulations are to prescribe or indicate what the Secretary of State believes, presumably there could be the potential for more and more documents to be included under regulations. That means that this will not be the end of the story. One has to question the complexity of what we will end up with.

Baroness Hamwee: I wonder whether it is pertinent—or perhaps impertinent—to ask what documents the Government have considered as likely candidates but not included in their draft regulations.

Lord Rooker: Is that a question for me? I am looking at subsection (7). My speaking note on the amendment covers about 100 words in total. The amendment is very active and seeks to remove the Secretary of State's power to prescribe in regulations the kinds of local development documents that must be development plan documents. It is important that he should have that power in order to make them subject to independent examination. I have already covered the principle and benefit of having supplementary planning documents that are not covered by the requirement for independent examination.
	We are covering the issue by regulation—that is all this little clause is about. Well, it is not such a little clause. I realise that. It does not go to the heart of the Bill in many ways. If experience shows that we need to move quickly by regulation to change the classification of certain documents, it gives us the flexibility to do so. That is all this is about.
	I cannot embellish on it—although I am about to, having been handed a note. This sets out our policy on what documents the local planning authority should have. This is in the Green Paper and policy statement regulations that gave effect to that policy. I do not understand that. I shall stick to my original speaking note.
	All we are talking about is having the facility and capability to change by regulation the definition of which documents should be covered by the classification of development plan documents and therefore require independent examination. Supplementary planning documents will not be covered by that requirement. They will deal with other matters. Over time, it might be thought more appropriate that issues raised in some supplementary documents should be subject to independent examination. They would therefore be reclassified as development plan documents. That would be carried out under subsection (7)(a), which the noble Baroness seeks to remove. I hope that I have made the case for retaining it.

Baroness Hanham: All we are asking the Government to do is to ensure that the documents that are to be included are on the face of the Bill. The Minister has said that the documents will be included in regulations and so, at some stage, people may decide to stir things up and have another go at what is or is not a development document and what will or will not go to an independent inspector. We shall come back to the issue of the independent inspector later. We are a million miles apart.

Lord Avebury: Is it not clear that any document which concerns the development or use of land has to be a development document? As the Minister said, it is only documents that deal with the generality of planning policy and do not directly affect the use or development of land that can be supplementary documents. Having asked the noble Baroness whether that is her understanding of the difference between the two, would it not be helpful if the Minister could at some point—not in answer to the amendment—give examples of the different categories of documents?

Baroness Hanham: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention but it serves only to add to my perplexity about this. As I understand it, documents can be recategorised under regulations. The reason for having them included in regulations is in order that the Minister can recategorise them at will and probably without further consultation. As I said, we are a million miles apart on this. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 93B not moved.]

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 94:
	Page 10, line 12, at end insert "or"

Baroness Hanham: Amendment No. 94 seeks to make it clear that a document is a local development document either if it is adopted by resolution of the local planning authority or if it is approved by the Secretary of State. By this means it would be not necessary to obtain the Secretary of State's approval for a document if it had already been passed by a local planning authority. The Bill as it stands is ambiguous as to whether both the Secretary of State's approval and a resolution of a local planning authority are necessary, or only one of these.
	I understand that the Minister in another place undertook to consider this matter further. I hope as a consequence that the amendment will be accepted. It would be absurd if the Secretary of State had to agree to every local development document. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister would be swamped with paper and, far from increasing speed and efficiency, the planning system would grind to a halt. It would be centralisation at its worst, with the Government sticking their nose into highly localised issues of which they have little knowledge.
	Surely if a document has been adopted by resolution of a local planning authority as a local plan of development, that is enough unless it decides that it wishes it to be approved by the Secretary of State. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I understand that the amendment has been debated once, perhaps twice, in another place—first in Committee and then on recommitment in the Commons.
	It seeks to insert the word "or" between paragraphs (a) and (b) of Clause 16(8). We believe that it is unnecessary. If Clause 16(8) is read together with Clause 22, which deals with the adoption of local development documents, and Clauses 20 and 26, which deal with the Secretary of State's powers of intervention and default, it is clear that paragraphs (a) and (b) of Clause 16(8) are not cumulative but alternatives. The provision simply states that there are two routes by which a document can become a local development document in its final form—it can be adopted by the local authority or, in the case of development plan documents only, approval must be given by the Secretary of State. Only one can apply to any local development document or part of such a document at any one time. Far from it being excessively onerous or bureaucratic, we contend that the process is clear. It is about alternatives not the accumulation of a position. There is possibly a misunderstanding, but I hope that that explanation provides some necessary clarity for the noble Baroness and that she will be able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Hanham: There are potentially two words missing from the clause. The Minister said that "or" is understood, but "and" could also be understood. Neither word is in the Bill. I cannot see any reason at all why the Minister is not leaping up and down to accept my amendment so that it is made abundantly clear that "or" is included. That is clearly what the clause means, and if that is so, why cannot we include the word? The clause could perfectly well be read as including "and". There are two paragraphs; (a) and (b), but it could also read (a) or (b)—the clause does not say which. I would have thought that, in the interests of clarity, it would be much more sensible to do as my amendment suggests and include the word "or". That would make it beyond peradventure so that people would not have to go rummaging through the rest of the Bill to find out what the clause means.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: If it helps, we will have another look at the drafting.

Baroness Hanham: On that basis, I will wait to see what the Minister comes up with, but, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 95 not moved.]
	Clause 16 agreed to.
	Clause 17 [Statement of community involvement]:

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 95A:
	Page 10, line 16, at end insert "and shall consult during its preparation persons who appear to the authority to have an interest in matters relating to—
	(a) the use of land;
	(b) development; or
	(c) the community strategy,
	in their area"

Baroness Hamwee: Grouped with this amendment are Amendments Nos. 95B, 99A and 99B. Amendment No. 95A would include consultation provisions that an authority should observe in the preparation of its "statement of community involvement". I am suggesting that authorities should consult people who have an interest in the use of land, development, or the community strategy. I became increasingly confused about whether the statement of community involvement was a development plan document or was one for only limited purposes and whether it was subject to independent examination. Clearly, if it is not—although draft PPS 12 says that it will be subject to examination—there is more need for consultation in its preparation. There is clearly a need for consultation anyway.
	The terminology in the amendment,
	"the use of land; development",
	takes us back to our debate on the first day of Committee and on to Amendment No. 95B, which deals with the difficulty that some of us had about whether development in the context of this Bill was the same as that defined in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990—the Minister said that it was. Section 55 of that Act states that development includes,
	"material change in the use of any buildings or other land",
	which could mean other buildings or other land.
	Amendment No. 99A would make it clear—clearer than I am managing—that the statement of community involvement should be the subject of independent examination. Amendment No. 99B would leave out subsections (4) and (5) of Clause 17. The amendment probes whether subsection (5) refers only to the statement of community involvement. The clause states:
	"But in section 19(5)(a)—
	(a) the reference to section 18 must be construed as if it does not include a reference to subsection (2)",
	and—or perhaps that should be "or"—
	"(b) the reference to section 23(1) must be ignored".
	I once had a client who had a very difficult meeting with one of my colleagues. When he got back to his office he sent my colleague a bottle of aspirin. I feel that aspirin should have been dispensed by the Government before they got us into all this. I know that drafting sometimes has to be complex in order to be correct and precise, but many of us are left with our heads spinning. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: We have moved on to a slightly different issue in Clause 17, so it may be useful if I make a few general points before commenting on the amendments. Community involvement in planning is crucial. It is one of the new elements in the Bill. The statement of community involvement is an innovation—there is no question about that. We want an accessible and transparent planning system in which people can participate at the beginning, not wait until something turns up on their doorsteps. We genuinely believe that community involvement will lead to a better outcome. There is no doubt that communities can get wound up and invigorated and thereby create better decisions.
	I want to make it abundantly clear that the purpose of community involvement is not to stop development. It is of course a challenge in that respect but we think that the investment is worth it. The best local authorities and developers recognise that it is a much better and more efficient way of going about development. Our approach is based on people having access to information and being able to express their ideas or participate in the process of developing the local documents. We do not simply want a checklist approach that encourages the minimum compliance.
	There must be boundaries to the process, because we do not want consultation to be used as a reason for putting off decisions. The local authority is the decision maker at the end the day. Although they may not always like it, local councillors are the ones making the decisions. They sometimes like to be able to say, "We would rather turn this down, let it go to appeal and let the Minister decide", because that would make it easier to face the local community. However, they would be likely to take that view only if there had not been a genuine community involvement in which people understood the issues. There is a requirement on local authorities and councillors to show leadership in this process.
	We are developing several principles to underpin our approach to the statement of community involvement. It must be fit for the purpose of making arrangements for the different levels of planning. We want to create early participation so that the system is front-end loaded. We want to recognise differing needs, especially those of hard-to-reach groups in the community. People must be kept involved, so the statement should not be a snapshot. It must also ensure that people know when they can participate and when is the appropriate time for their participation to be effective. There must be proper planning of the community involvement process. It is a key innovation.
	The statement of community involvement is a statement of the local planning authority's policy for involving interested parties. It will describe how the local planning authority will implement the minimum standards in regulations and will include any extra measures that the local authority intends to adopt. Of course there will be an independent examination of the statement of community involvement. Certain benchmarks would be looked for in a sound statement of community involvement. It should show that the local authority is meeting its legal requirements, so that we can avoid any unfortunate disputes. It should set out the strategy and how it links to other initiatives. It should identify the groups of people who need to be involved and the mechanism for getting them involved. It should show how the results of the consultation and the involvement have fed into the process for preparing the local development documents; that is a valuable point.
	Now that I have made those general points, I shall deal with the amendments. Amendment No. 95A requires the local authority to consult interested parties on the statement of community involvement while it is in preparation. We agree on the need for involvement. There is no difference between us on that. This will happen because the statement of community involvement is a local development document and therefore subject to the consultation procedures, which are in the draft regulations and guidance. It is also subject to statutory independent examination, as we have described earlier. Therefore, the consultation requirement is not needed on the face of the Bill. It will happen. It is implicit in the process that we have set up.
	The consultation arrangements in the regulations include consultation with specific bodies and the opportunity for anyone to make representations when the statement is submitted for examination. The Bill provides the opportunity for anyone who has made representations to be heard at examination. There is plenty of scope for involvement.
	Amendment No. 95B adds a few words to Clause 17(2). I understand the point made by the noble Baroness and, while we do not think we need the words suggested, I shall look at this and come back to her. She makes a fair point.
	Amendments Nos. 99A and 99B come from the Benches opposite, although they have not spoken to them. They would mean that the statement of community involvement was not subject to public examination. I am not casting aspersions on a probing amendment but we cannot exclude the statement of community involvement from the examination process. It is very important to test it, to make sure that it is sound and to allow representations to be heard. It is not intended to put extra burdens on the local authority. However, it is right that a policy on community involvement is subject to testing in front of the community. I hope that there is general agreement that this innovation is a good idea. I have given a general view of how we intend to operate this part of the new policy. I hope that colleagues find this explanation helpful.

Baroness Hamwee: The Government should issue a Minister to give an explanation with every copy of the Bill that is sold. It would be much easier than reading the clause.
	I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation and, in particular, for his comments on Amendment No. 95B, which pick up a point initially raised by my noble friend Lord Greaves. The general description of the objectives and nature of the statement of community involvement made my point for me on Amendment No. 95A. I think that I have followed the process which ought to require that what I am suggesting happens anyway. I am grateful for the Minister's response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 95B not moved.]

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 96:
	Page 10, line 21, at end insert—
	"(2A) A statement of community involvement shall not seek to impose any greater obligation upon an applicant for planning permission than that contained in or made under the planning Acts, or support the refusal of planning permission because of a failure by an applicant to comply with any such obligation."

Baroness Hanham: This amendment is designed to prevent a statement of community involvement imposing additional obligations on applicants for planning permission or the refusal of planning permission because a developer has failed to carry out non-statutory consultation. Does the statement of community involvement impose consultation obligations upon developers? Do they have to have a consultation on each development or is it just the local authorities? I see the Minister shaking his head but he may like to respond to that.
	On the whole, we are highly supportive of involving communities in the planning process. Indeed, my own local authority already undertakes considerable consultation on individual applications and on its strategies; the statement of community involvement will be an add-on. We recognise that the involvement of the local community and those affected by developments may not be universally as well provided and we understand the Minister's requirement for a statement of community involvement.
	However, it is important that we also keep an eye on the burdens that such statutory consultation will create. We must ensure that the costs of producing a statement of community involvement do not grow to such a level that they outweigh the benefits. In this context, given the amount of documents that will go to independent scrutiny or to independent inspectors to be looked at, presumably there will be a vast increase in the bureaucracy in the appeals section in order to deal with the mammoth amount of paperwork. That is an aside to the amendment, but I could not resist raising it at some stage. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: The noble Baroness has raised an important point and it is fair to get it on the record. We attach great importance to community involvement in applications. Local authorities and developers must work closely with communities on planning applications. Effective community involvement at the early stages can increase the quality of the decision. That takes time, but it is better to get decisions right, rather than having them dragged out to appeal.
	The point I must make is that the statement of community involvement is a statement of the local authority's policy. That is what it is about—the local authority's policy. The provisions of the Bill do not place any direct obligations on developers or other persons who wish to take part in the planning process. It is not a backdoor route to placing unnecessary burdens on those interested in the planning process. It is not intended to do that. The Town and Country Planning Act and the general development procedure order set requirements on a local authority to publicise planning applications and to take into account representations received. There are different publicity requirements for different types of application.
	I hope that I have said enough to show that we are not making extra burdens. So far as appeals are concerned I cannot speak for the Planning Inspectorate, but I understand that it has great aims to increase vastly its productivity.

Baroness Hanham: Well, there is a thing—to increase the Planning Inspectorate's productivity over and above what it does already and to get its decisions out even more quickly. That would be even more excellent.
	I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of this as there has been some concern that there would be a statutory requirement on developers to provide a statement of community involvement before each major development. That is what one expects them to do, to ensure that they have some support from people round about; but, of course, that does not always happen. It is reassuring to know that this is not what is expected with this. It is quite clear from what the Minister has said that the statement of community involvement is a policy statement on how consultation on planning applications by a local authority will take place. With that explanation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 96A:
	Page 10, line 21, at end insert—
	"(2B) Persons shall include town and parish councils, businesses and business organisations and residents, amenity and environmental groups in their area, whether or not incorporated."

Baroness Hanham: We have touched on this matter already; the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, mentioned it. I shall outline some slightly different groups from those that she included.
	The proposed amendment sets on the face of the Bill a list of the groups that should be included in the preparation of a statement of community involvement. Clause 17(2) says that the statement of community involvement should be a statement of the authority's policy to,
	"persons who appear to the authority to have an interest in matters relating to development in their area".
	It is an extremely broad definition. Clause 17 would benefit from this amendment, which would clearly set out the groups that must be covered at a minimum. That would include town and parish councils, businesses, business organisations, residents' amenity associations and environmental groups in their area regardless of whether they are incorporated. Any statement of involvement that failed to incorporate the views of these groups would necessarily be incomplete. It is important that the Bill emphasises that a diversity of soundings must be taken. I beg to move.

Lord Greaves: Amendment No. 96B, which is in the same group as Amendment No. 96A, covers very similar ground. I shall therefore be extremely brief in speaking to it. It would be extremely helpful if the Minister could make it absolutely clear who is included as persons thought "to have an interest" in the matter. I look forward to his reply.

Lord Rooker: I think that I can satisfy the Committee on both the generality and the specifics. In the draft regulations we have covered many of the bodies that would be specific consultation bodies; there is a list on page 5 of the regulations. As I said, the statement of community involvement is a statement of the local authority's policy on involving people. We have made it clear that local authorities would be expected to tailor their statement of community involvement to the specific needs and character of their areas. That applies to development of the statement itself. It has to be fit for purpose and, as I said, it should identify the groups relevant to the local area that should be involved.
	We think it impractical to list on the face of the Bill the groups that may lay a claim to having an interest. Obviously the statement has to meet the legal requirements. One needs to look at the statement of community involvement alongside the legal requirements in our draft regulations for consultation on local development documents. Specific and general bodies must be consulted. "Specific bodies" include relevant authorities, which includes parish councils as well as other authorities; general bodies including bodies representing the voluntary sector; business; bodies representing the interests of disabled people; ethnic, racial or national groups; and religious groups. It is a fairly comprehensive list.
	Any person can make representations on a local development document. So the statement of community involvement must show how the local authority intends to consult with the bodies listed. On the other hand, even if a body is not specifically listed, it can still make representations on the document. The statement has to show how that can take place even if it is for an individual.
	There are consultation and notification arrangements for planning applications in the general development procedure order. Parish councils are among those who must be notified. Of course, they can make representations under these arrangements. We are not changing the position at all.
	Finally, I remind the Committee that the statement of community involvement has to be tested at the public examination. So if an interest group thought that it should have been included with the statement of community involvement but had been omitted from the draft, it could make representations to that effect. So there is a process for ensuring that you get on the list. If you are not on it to start with, you can still make representations.

Baroness Hanham: I think that that is an eminently sensible reply. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 96B not moved.]

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 96C:
	Page 10, line 21, at end insert—
	"(2C) An enterprise zone authority, urban development corporation, housing action trust or the urban regeneration agency shall prepare a statement of community involvement with respect to any functions falling within subsection (2) which it has power to exercise."

Baroness Hanham: I have tabled these amendments to make sure that where there are urban development corporations, and in fact any other bodies with development control powers, they should also have to prepare statements of community involvement. I had a quite interesting experience the other day when someone pointed out to me that the electricity companies have development powers in the Energy Bill. I presume that that applies also to other—I was going to say statutory undertakers, but that is no longer correct—people who provide energy. The Minister may like to respond to the point. If so, however, those also would be included in my amendment. I can see no reason why anyone with development control powers should be excluded from making a statement of community involvement.
	Why should a council have to prepare such a statement and any urban development corporation or anyone else with development powers not have to do so? Community involvement is a vital exercise when developing local plans. In keeping with the Government's overarching desire to have a transparent and fair planning system, will the Minister concede that that is a reasonable revision—or perhaps tell the Committee that the Government have no plan to disapply this clause for urban development corporations? The point is even more important when one considers all the development that will take place under the sustainable communities plan which affects vast swathes of the country. Moreover, as I said, the electricity companies will also have development powers in the Energy Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I make no apology for agreeing that we need to have strengthened delivery methods for delivering our objectives in the growth areas. The issue is selecting the right type of vehicle and ensuring that each one fits the need. We absolutely agree that there must be consultation on proposals. We consulted fully on proposals for the Thurrock UDC, and we are now consulting on proposals for the London Thames Gateway, Milton Keynes and west Northamptonshire.
	The amendment would require an enterprise zone authority, urban development corporation, housing action trust or the urban regeneration agency to prepare a statement of community involvement where it has the power to exercise any function under Clause 17(2). Those functions are preparing local development documents and determining planning applications. It is only fair to say that, as they stand, the amendments would not work. As I think we have discussed, for the purposes of the process of preparation, a statement of community involvement is treated as a local development document. So it would have to allow those bodies to prepare local development documents in order for them to prepare a statement of community involvement. However, I accept the noble Baroness's point of principle. It is very important, but it is not so much a matter of the technical drafting of the amendments.
	The bodies in question can be given powers to determine planning applications. They would have to determine the application in accordance with the development plan drawn up by the relevant local authority unless there were other material considerations. So the framework within which the delivery vehicle operated would have been subject to the involvement processes that have already been discussed.
	Perhaps I may take each of the delivery vehicles in turn. A local authority can be invited by the Secretary of State to prepare a scheme for an enterprise zone under Schedule 32 to the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. Where an enterprise zone scheme is adopted, planning permission is granted automatically for development specified in the scheme. So an enterprise zone scheme is actually owned by the local authority.
	As far as the process of consultation goes, the critical point is when the scheme is proposed. It is inconceivable that a proposal for a scheme would not be considered in a local development document. The statement of community involvement covers that process. Indeed, Clause 25 of the Bill requires local authorities to revise relevant local development documents if an enterprise zone scheme is designated. Secondly, the legislation for enterprise zones contains requirements for draft schemes to be publicised and for representations to be made and properly considered.
	If an urban development corporation is given the powers to determine applications as a local planning authority, then it also follows that the requirements placed on a local planning authority in respect of procedures to follow when determining the application apply also to the UDC. As we have already discussed, there are requirements for publicity, the notification of planning applications and enabling representations to be made. Those will apply also to a UDC. UDCs also have to draw up a code of conduct for consultation with the relevant local authorities in their area.
	We are quite clear that community involvement is key to the successful operation of UDCs and we agree with the view that UDCs must ensure that local community thinking is put at the heart of UDC programmes. We will ensure that UDC guidance and targets reflect that. Thurrock Council, for example, will be fully consulted on the guidance.
	The Urban Regeneration Agency is now part of English Partnerships and we are consulting on a proposal to make an order to give the URA planning powers in respect of an urban development area in the Milton Keynes growth area. As with a UDC, if the URA is the local planning authority for the purposes of determining planning applications, it will have to meet the requirements for consultation. Again, notwithstanding the legal requirements, we are emphasising absolutely the need for that delivery vehicle to involve the community. English Partnerships already has a strong track record on the matter.
	The existing housing action trusts were set up in 1992 to 1993 and have well established arrangements for consulting their tenants and stakeholders. Indeed, one could argue that they would not operate effectively without such arrangements. Therefore, any proposals to make them prepare formal statements of community involvement would be addressing a problem that does not exist. Furthermore no HATs have been given planning powers and we have no plans to do so. The noble Baroness has raised an important point of principle, even if the amendment does not work. But I reiterate our absolute commitment to ensuring that the delivery vehicles meet the spirit of the statement of community involvement philosophy for community involvement, even though the existing arrangements are more than sufficient to ensure that we do all that we can to import the full SCI process into the legal framework under which they operate.
	So, I am grateful for the amendment. It has given us a useful opportunity to make a statement of our policy and intent and to clarify some of the confusion that the noble Baroness may have had about our approach. She asked about electricity companies having development powers. Utility companies cannot make decisions, but they may have permitted development rights for operational works. I do not think that their scope for development goes any further than that.

Baroness Hanham: I am grateful for the detail of the Minister's reply, which I shall read and ensure that it covers all the points that have been raised. I would be grateful if he could take my point about the electricity companies a little further, because my reading of that clause in the Energy Bill was that they did have development powers. If they did, and it were specific to the electricity companies, they would need to be encompassed somewhere in the general points that the Minister has described.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: That is an interesting point. My understanding is that they have limited permission rights which are essentially there for operational reasons. However, if the reading by the noble Baroness of that clause is right, we might well want to look at what the electricity companies might have to do to ensure that there is adequate community consultation. She made a useful point which I will happily pursue and respond to.

Baroness Hanham: On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 97 to 99B not moved.]
	Clause 17 agreed to.
	Clause 18 [Preparation of local development documents]:

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 99C:
	Page 10, line 41, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c).

Baroness Hamwee: Amendment No. 99C, which is another probing amendment, would leave out from Clause 18, which deals with the preparation of development documents, subsection (2)(b) and (c). I do not really wish for that, but merely seek to understand how the reference lies with a later part of the Bill. Subsection (2) states:
	"In preparing a local development document the local planning authority must have regard to . . . the RSS for the region . . . if the area is outside London; [or] the spatial development strategy if the authority are a London borough or if any part of the authority's area adjoins Greater London".
	We find that in Clause 23(1) and (2) the local development documents have to be "in general conformity" with the RSS and the spatial development strategy. Clause 23(2) requires opinions to be requested about conformity. I am not seriously suggesting that the planning authority should not have regard to the RSS of the spatial development strategy, but can the Minister help us with the nice distinction between the processes that a planning authority has to go through to be "in general conformity" as distinct from "having regard to"? I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: I accept, as the noble Baroness said, that this is a probing amendment. It would remove the requirement for local planning authorities to have regard to the regional spatial strategy or spatial development strategy for any part of its area when preparing the local development documents.
	The planning system is based on a framework of national policies, the regional spatial strategies and the local development documents. Each level in that structure needs to have regard to the strategic levels above. That provides for sensible vertical integration within the system. We need to ensure that local planning authorities consider all the relevant strategies and policies affecting development in their areas; and they need to ensure effective links between local and regional planning to ensure the best planning outcomes. Spatial strategy is all about that integrated approach.
	The use, development and planning of land at local level cannot, or should not, occur in a vacuum. To achieve sustainable spatial results the local development documents must have regard to the relevant regional strategies and policies. Planning policy statement 11, which we discussed earlier, ensures that the regional spatial strategy should set out sufficiently clear sub-regional objectives and policies to enable those people preparing the local development documents to consider any key strategic sub-regional implications of proposed development. For example, transport issues in the local development documents should be consistent with, and informed by, the regional transport strategy, which will be an integral part of the regional spatial strategy.
	Therefore, the amendment would severely weaken good planning for the local authority's area. It would also weaken the regional spatial strategy, if that was not taken into account at local level. The amendment contradicts what has been said about the need to strengthen regional planning.
	The general conformity provides a link between the regional and local level. It ensures, for example, that the regional spatial strategy, or, as appropriate, the mayor's spatial development strategy, is properly translated into policies at the local level. Without a general conformity requirement which exists at present in relation to the strategic—
	Hang on a minute. I have an acronym in my notes which I refuse to read out.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Rooker: I have not done that once, yet, and I am not going to now. I apologise. I shall have to get around this. The acronym must refer to the—

Baroness Hanham: Have a break.

Lord Rooker: I cannot. There has to be a test of a general conformity. Without that, the strategic planning cannot be effectively delivered. We need that test in any effect.
	Once the ground rules have been set, the local planning authority can prepare its own policies and proposals reflecting its community involvement and appraisal of sustainability—it will of course need to do that—provided that the local development document remains in general conformity with it. That is a test of general, not detailed, conformity. We shall make it clear in the final version of planning policy statement 12 that the Government's policy is that only where a local development document would cause significant harm to the implementation of the regional spatial strategy should the local development document be considered not to be in general conformity.
	I shall read out the final paragraph of my briefing anyway. The chain of conformity between the local development document set out in the draft regulations simplifies the application of the test of general conformity. The core strategy should generally conform with the spatial vision and strategy in the regional spatial strategy or the spatial development strategy. As we move down the chain of local development documents, we would expect fewer interventions in respect of general conformity.
	Having put all that on record, I expect a lot fewer amendments on Report. I am sorry about the hiatus, but I was faced at short notice with an acronym that I did not like. I hope that I have given a satisfactory explanation of why it would be dangerous to remove the need for local planning authorities, in preparing the local development documents, to have regard to the spatial development strategy or the regional spatial strategy for any part of their areas. The tiered levels need to be linked.

Lord Avebury: Having listened carefully to the Minister's explanation, I am none the wiser. My noble friend asked him what I thought was a perfectly simple question, which was why, if we have the provision in Clause 18(2), we also need that in Clause 23(1). If the local authority has done what it is told to do in Clause 18(2)—if it has had regard to "national policies and advice" and,
	"the RSS for the region"—
	surely that means that it must be in conformity with the RSS. Surely that must be so unless what the Minister said means in effect that, having had regard to the RSS, the local authority has decided to ignore it, so that the development documents that it produces are not in conformity with it. I do not know whether that meaning can be ascribed to "have regard to".

Lord Rooker: I will be happy to give more detail on Clause 23 when we get to it, but there is a test of general conformity. Obviously the amendments are probing—I do not say any more than that—and colleagues may be opposed to the principle of the test of general conformity. However, I do not think that they are. The general conformity test provides an important link between the regional and local level. That link may be considered unsatisfactory.
	I have said that it is a test of general conformity, not detailed conformity. We will make it clear in the final version of planning policy statement 12 that the Government's policy is that only where a local development document would cause significant harm to the implementation of the spatial development strategy or the regional spatial strategy should the local development document be considered not to be in general conformity.
	In Clause 18(2), there is a need to have regard to that as part of the process of preparation. In Clause 23, conformity is when the document is prepared, so it is a check at the end of the process. That is the best explanation that I can give at the moment, but if there is more to be done on the matter I can deal with it when we come to Clause 23.

Baroness Hamwee: I would put it the other way round from my noble friend. If there has to be general conformity—we are certainly not suggesting that there should not be—what does "have regard to" add? I cannot help thinking that if Clause 18(2)(b) and (c) were not there, and if we had tabled an amendment to include that on the way to general conformity the local planning authority should have regard to those items, we would have been told that that provision was unnecessary. The Minister clearly has some sympathy with that point of view.
	My serious point is to understand whether the local planning authority needs to do something particular at the relevant stage that complying with Clause 23 does not of itself provide. The Minister was quite right, of course—it was a probing amendment—and in the absence of any more paper winging its way to him I had better beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 99D:
	Page 11, line 3, at end insert—
	"( ) the local transport plan for their area;"

Baroness Hanham: I shall move the amendment, but I think that I recall the Minister explaining the situation a bit earlier, so forgive me if I am covering repeat ground. When preparing local development documents, local authorities should have regard to,
	"the local transport plan for their area".
	That is what the amendment suggests formally. I think that I remember the Minister talking about that.
	In reality, authorities will take transport plans into account, but there may be some reluctance to include them where a document might have been prepared by a county council. I do not know whether there is any sensitivity about that. Surely the county council's strategies on transport, education, housing, health, employment and major investment would all be worth "having regard to". I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: As the noble Baroness said, I have covered the matter previously. We agree with the intention behind the amendment, but we do not think it necessary. The nature of the relevant documents can alter, even in the space of a few years. I am told, for example—I was not aware of it precisely—that local transport plans did not exist until 1998. It is better to set out only a broad framework in the legislation, because the Secretary of State has the power in Clause 18(2)(j) to prescribe other matters to which authorities must have regard.
	Annexe B of draft planning policy statement 12 also makes it clear that, under the new planning system, the integration of transport and spatial planning is central to the development and delivery of effective local development frameworks. To deliver integration, local development documents should be consistent with the local transport planning policies for their areas.
	We agree with the intention, and that intention will be carried out in practice, but it is not necessary to put it in the Bill in such a way.

Baroness Hanham: I appreciate that the Minister had covered the ground earlier, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Maddock: moved Amendment No. 100:
	Page 11, line 7, at end insert—
	"( ) the housing strategy prepared by the authority under the Local Government Act 2003 (c. 26);"

Baroness Maddock: In moving Amendment No. 100, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 101 and 102. I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in whose name Amendment No. 101 is tabled, is not in his place, so it might be appropriate for me to keep my comments to myself; I do not know.
	I may get a similar answer to the answer to the previous amendment. The purpose of my amendment is to ensure that the local authority has regard to its own housing strategies in drawing up the local development document. The content of local housing strategies and local plans overlap. The local housing strategy is underpinned by local assessment of housing needs, and local plans deal with the amount and location of new housing for private sales and affordable housing. Unfortunately, housing planning departments are often inconsistent, and sometimes we see conflict. I hope that this amendment will create a strong incentive for authorities to reconcile their planning and housing policies.
	If there is improved clarity for authorities and their stakeholders, there will be fewer disputes. This is especially important in respect of planning applications for housing developments. We know, from the Minister's statements on many occasions, the importance of addressing the shortage of housing in this country. That is why I am so keen to get this in the Bill. We also need a culture of positive planning for housing. We need to reinforce the mutual importance of planning and housing in achieving sustainable development.
	There are various reasons why this is important. Most of us believe that areas with a good mix of housing types, affordable rented, shared ownership, and owner occupier, create more stable neighbourhoods. Often when housing developments come forward, a combination of public and private funding is needed to create affordable homes. Local plans that consider local housing need to create a better basis for local authorities, housing associations and private developers to reach agreement. The Government want to see that.
	Lots of reasons have been given for the problem of delivering local housing, and many believe that the delivery of affordable housing is being hampered by inconsistencies between the local plans and the housing strategy. This gives the opportunity for all sorts of appeals against decisions. The choice and range of affordable housing could be managed much more successfully if housing and planning strategies were put together. I hope that the Minister will understand and at least agree with the sentiments behind Amendment No. 100.
	I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is trying to achieve in Amendment No. 101, and I have a great deal of sympathy with it. Often, we build affordable housing, and it quickly becomes unaffordable after a period of a few years. There are one or two schemes around the country where people have tried to do something about it. It is an issue that must be dealt with. However, it is not an issue that can be dealt with in this Bill. Planning authorities do not really have the main role in determining the price of property, but the noble Lord raises an important issue. Local authorities often do not provide the new housing, and again it is therefore difficult for them to control the price of property.
	I agree with Amendment No. 102 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best. The noble Lord has a lot of experience in these matters. If my own amendment were accepted, because housing need assessments are part of local housing strategies and they underpin them, the matter would be covered by Amendment No. 100. I will listen with interest to what both noble Lords say about those amendments. I beg to move.

Lord Lucas: I was waiting for the noble Lord, Lord Best. My amendment does not have the same practical applications as that of the noble Baroness, Lady Maddox—at least not at the moment. It follows on from my own research and from Kate Barker's interim report. She has effectively demonstrated the economic disadvantages that flow from increasing housing prices. If I remember the figure correctly, GDP is £10 billion less than it would have been if we had not had that phenomenon. We all know that the Chancellor is concerned with the effect that the dynamics of our housing market have on our possible entry into the euro, that it is something that is now big enough and difficult enough to affect the way in which our economy flows. Perhaps people are starting to get obsessed with housing as the right place to put their money because they are not as confident as we would like them to be in financial investments and in the stock market.
	These are real economic disadvantages. Investing in housing and relying on an increase in the value of housing is not an economic good—it is speculation. At the end of the day, it must end. We have somehow convinced ourselves that rising house prices are beneficial. Over the past 20 years the result has been that the average household has been able to afford a house 20 per cent smaller than used to be the case. It is a lot more valuable, but it is smaller. We ought to see housing as something that we use, rather than as an investment.
	The people who are winning out of this are the landowners, the people who are selling their land into the market, and the people who in other ways are involved in land speculation. It is nice that some people are winning out of this, but it is not where we should be trying to direct economic benefit. We are also in the business of transferring wealth from the young to the old. We are putting ever-increasing burdens on young people, who are trying to build up their interest in property with an expanding family, or just wanting to live better. They are finding it harder and harder to afford the sort of house that they would like.
	The people who are benefiting are those who are downsizing. We are transferring wealth from the young to the old. For many in this House, that may be a good idea, but it is not a good idea for the economy as a whole. As Kate Barker develops her ideas and they gain support from the Treasury and from other branches of the Government, we will see some determination to do something about this, to try to find a way of ending this endless spiral of house prices.
	In this amendment I propose that the benchmark that we should aim at is retail price inflation. That way, with us all doing, with any luck, slightly better than retail price inflation over the years, we can look forward to being able to afford bigger, better, nicer houses, rather than being able to afford smaller houses, which is what is happening at the moment. It would have many economic benefits too, as Kate Barker has demonstrated.
	How are we to achieve this? We cannot achieve it, as the Chancellor is finding, through operating the big levers of state. The property market is not responsive to that—it is only part of the economy anyway. So many other influences come to bear. He cannot stick up stamp duty forever; he only has some blunt instruments. What is needed is something that bears on the supply of property. Demand is essentially generated by people and is, to some extent, out of the Chancellor's control. Government and local government have a substantial effect on supply. It is planning policies that determine how much, and where, land is available for development and how much gets developed. If we can have some lever on supply, we have some hope of maintaining over time a reasonably steady house price. Obviously, many influences, demands and considerations come to bear on whether planning permission should be given in any individual case. However, if you include an objective alongside those such as design and sustainability that house prices should remain steady, and if that is held to over time, people will not pay high prices for their houses. If you say, "Today is the bench-mark date. We will not allow, by and large, house prices to run far ahead of inflation", why should someone pay a price 20 per cent above that bench-mark? They know that if they do they will lose money in 10 years and that the planning authority will probably take action to reduce the price. People will not be inclined to chase house prices in the knowledge that they will lose money.
	By that demonstrative action, the Government could have a very calming effect on people's expectations of the return that they will get from investment in housing. Without having to pull vast levers and shift vast amounts of money around, one will alter people's belief and understanding of what investment in property is supposed to entail. I do not expect the Government to make any motions on that today, but it is a direction and a subject that I hope to have the opportunity to explore over the next couple of years, until we get around to doing something about the Barker review and its consequences. I shall be delighted to hear what the Minister says on the matter today. If he is entirely opposed to the proposal, at least it will stop me wasting my time.

Lord Best: I speak in complete support of the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. Amendment No. 102, tabled in my name, would amend Clause 18 to require the local planning authority, when preparing a local development document, to have regard to "meeting housing needs". That is a slightly broader approach to that taken by Amendment No. 100, but it shares that amendment's aim of putting housing on the face of the Bill.
	Why should housing receive such attention? The reason that the amendment is necessary flows from the importance in the planning system of meeting housing need. That is one of the key purposes for which we have a planning system and is one of the key reasons for the Government to seek to reform that system through this Bill.
	I underline points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, about the necessity for easing housing shortages, which is a core motive behind the Government's desire to reduce the delays and hassles that often characterise UK planning at present.
	I welcome hugely the Government's commitment to address the dramatic decline in housing supply at a time of growing housing demand. As Kate Barker of the Bank of England shows in her brilliant interim report for the Treasury, to which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, referred, there is a gap, growing by about 39,000 homes each year, between the number of new homes built and the number of new households formed each year. UK housing output is now back to the levels of the 1920s, yet household formation, caused principally by all of us living longer; the growth of single-person households, comprising those who have not married or who have divorced; and international migration, particularly for jobs in London, remains on its upward path. The resulting shortages create economic and social problems: acute house price inflation and volatility in all areas of high demand; the worsening phenomenon of the two-hour commuter journey, so ruinous to family life for many in the south of England; the impossibility of recruiting teachers, nurses and other key people needed in many parts of the south east and west; the pricing-out of local people from many rural areas; and homelessness and overcrowding back to record levels.
	The gap between housing supply and demand is destined to keep growing unless the barriers to supply are successfully addressed. Planning is not the only reason for housing output falling so far behind, but it represents a significant ingredient. Achieving housing objectives is utterly dependent on the planning system, yet this Bill does not mention the meeting of housing needs as a key consideration for any of the participants.
	By making "meeting housing needs" formally a consideration in statutory forward plans, my amendment would ensure the connection between housing and planning. It would underpin the Government's good intentions for,
	"a step change in housing supply"
	as set out in its excellent Sustainable Communities Plan of last year.
	The amendment does not create a legal obligation on local planning authorities that could be enforced in the courts, but it represents a foot in the planners' door for housing champions, not least those in local authorities who must draw up the local housing strategy, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, and the subject of Amendment No. 100. My amendment would mean that planners would have to consult housing colleagues, providing a chance for joining up those strategic objectives.
	The amendment is not just about affordable housing, although I hope to return to that subject later in the Committee's deliberations; it is about identifying and addressing shortages in the whole housing market—requirements for owner occupation, rented housing and housing such as shared ownership in between. A full housing market assessment would be an essential part of the pre-production strategy of the local development framework.
	There are precedents for requiring planning authorities to have regard to specific issues. The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requires consideration, and thereby draws attention to,
	"the conservation of the natural beauty and amenity of the land".
	The Environment Act 1995 specifies wildlife and cultural heritage and,
	"opportunities for . . . enjoyment of the special qualities of certain areas".
	The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill will require, in Clause 38, that anyone exercising a planning function shall take on board the sustainable development agenda.
	The Minister may argue that planning guidance can cover all that. However, even in draft planning policy statement 12, the guidance that covers local development frameworks, there is no reference to linking housing and the local housing strategy to local development documents. That would buttress the PPG3 guidance on affordable housing and the PPG7 guidance on rural issues, which covers housing. Planning policy statement 12 mentions issues relating to the community strategy to which the plans should have regard. The list includes transport, education, health and waste management but, to my surprise, it excludes housing.
	By putting "meeting housing need" on the face of the Bill, the amendment would fill a gap, sending out a strong signal that planning is as much about housing as anything else, and that those with planning and housing responsibilities need to work together. It represents a unique chance to join up policies in the huge task of ensuring, at the very least, that the growing deficit between the number of new households that want a home and the number of homes built does not rise inexorably at its present alarming rate.

Lord Monson: I wish to comment on Amendment No. 101, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, which is interesting. This time last year I would have supported wholeheartedly the noble Lord's proposition that, in an ideal world, house prices should rise no faster than the rate of inflation. However, a few months ago, several noble Lords were discussing, as people do, the horrendous rise in house prices in London, not on the Floor of the House but at the long table. The noble Lord's colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, forcefully made the point that it was illogical to expect house prices to rise no faster than inflation: rather, one would expect them to rise in line with average earnings. Most of us conceded that the noble Baroness was talking good sense. After all, as people become gradually richer in real terms over the years, they naturally want to spend more of their money on their homes and can afford to do so. Over a 25-year period, one expects average real earnings to double at least. But I would refine the noble Baroness's assertion by substituting post tax earnings for earnings pure and simple.
	It is easy to forget that 25 years ago, in January 1979, the top rate of tax on earned income was 83 per cent. Most merchant bankers, bond dealers, City of London solicitors, captains of industry and so on paid tax at 83 per cent, or at least 75 per cent. Now, as we all know, thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, the top rate is no more than 40 per cent. That, together with the internationalisation of London—tens of thousands of people, most of them wealthy, pouring into London and settling here—explains why house prices in the more desirable parts of London, and even some of the less desirable parts, have not merely doubled or trebled, but at least quintupled in real terms.
	I agree with the proposition that one should discourage people speculating on ever-rising house prices. It makes life intolerable for younger people. Those of us with children and grandchildren will be well aware of this. However, I think the noble Lord is being over-ambitious in trying to link house prices to the RPT. He might possibly come back at Report stage with an amended version of the amendment, substituting the average earnings index for the retail prices index.

Lord Rooker: I do not wish to be discourteous, but this is the longest debate that we have had this afternoon, and I could give the shortest possible answer to it. It is in the last paragraph of my speaking notes. However, it does not fully cover the points of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I appreciate that his amendment is in a different league from the other two.
	The Bill already gives noble Lords what they want. Under Clause 18(2)(a), the local planning authority must have regard to national policies, and so would have to have regard to planning policy guidance 3 policies on housing, and to any policies on planning change. There is a requirement on the face of the Bill for the local authority to have regard to national policies, including housing policy in the broadest sense, where such policy statements exist. That is a positive point. It would be discourteous if I did not give more detail on that matter.
	There are some key issues to be discussed. I was in Bedfordshire today, discussing with local authorities in the Milton Keynes/South Midlands growth area some of the issues relating to growth. We need to grow in a planned, sustainable way in order to meet many of the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, and the noble Lord, Lord Best. The list covers policy documents and strategies that may impact on local planning policies. Clause 18(2) covers a number of matters to which the local authority should have regard.
	Amendment No. 100 would require the local planning authority to have specific regard to housing strategy prepared under Section 87 of the Local Government Act 2003. We agree that the local authority should consider its housing and planning strategies together as a matter of course. They must do so. Our new planning arrangements would strengthen the links between housing and planning, as well as with other important strategies and policies.
	The effective integration of strategy is a key objective of the new system. The local planning authority must take into account other relevant policies and strategies at local and regional level. We now have regional housing policies through the work of regional housing boards. Planning has a key role in contributing towards us achieving the successful, thriving and inclusive communities that we want. We must learn the lessons from the past, when we built what were sometimes unsustainable communities.
	We have just finished consultation on updates to planning for housing guidance set out in planning policy guidance 3. There were entitled Supporting the Delivery of New Housing and Influencing the Size, Type and Affordability of Housing. Consultation has now been closed, and we hope to publish a final policy statement this summer. Planning policy guidance 3 already places great emphasis on the links between strategies, and this has been strengthened in the updated version.
	I do not wish to fob off noble Lords—I would not dream of doing that—but we are going to get a fairly large housing Bill later in the Session, so we are going to be able to debate some of the key issues relating to housing. This planning legislation is not the most appropriate mechanism for listing all the local strategies. If we were to do that, the legislation would become difficult to change; the nature of the documents could change as well. We have set out only a broad framework in the legislation, describing the relevant documents in general terms, and leaving it to the policy statements of good practice guidance for specific documents.
	This deals with all the issues raised, except possibly the specific point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I understand why he has raised it, but I admit that I do not have an answer for him today.
	The reference to community strategy in the clause is an exception to the rule. It is a statement of an authority's strategic vision for the area and the context of all the subject-based strategies, policies and programmes. Our draft guidance on local development frameworks in planning policy statement 12 proposes various strategies to be considered. I will ensure that the final version of the document includes appropriate references to housing strategy. That is an important point. Under Clause 18(2)(j), the Secretary of State has powers to prescribe regulations, matters which authorities must have regard to. We have been consulting on these regulations.
	The clause deliberately does not specify policy objectives such as those set out in Amendments Nos. 101 and 102. Policy objectives can be transient, although in this case they are not. We are setting out broad principles. It would cause problems if we had to change primary legislation every time we wanted to change a policy objective.
	What noble Lords are asking for is in the Bill. Local authorities must have regard to national policies, and those national policies on housing are being set up now. They are being updated and consulted on. In the department's general guidance there are the policies that relate to the sustainable communities plan, and these may apply both to the wider growth areas of the south-east and the market renewable pathfinder areas of the north. I will have more to say about that matter in a few days. National policies will then be enunciated on how we intend to implement them.
	As the clause is drafted, local authorities must have regard to those national policies. Therefore, what is required by the amendments is covered in the Bill, although not in the specific terms.

Baroness Maddock: I thank the Minister for his reply. Very often, delivery of housing takes a long time. People dispute decisions. I shall read carefully what the Minister has said. I hope that that will reassure me that developers will not be able to appeal because the local authorities are not clear enough in what they are doing.
	I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he will "beef up" the guidance to ensure that housing strategies are mentioned. The noble Lord, Lord Best, did not disappoint me when he too raised that issue. It is important to ensure that local authorities get the message that their plans must be consistent. If they are not, we shall encounter the same problems of delivery on the ground and many appeals by developers.
	I shall read carefully what the Minister has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 100A to 102 not moved.]

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 102ZA:
	Page 11, line 12, at end insert—
	"(2A) For the purpose of the exercise of its functions in this section, a district council in an area where there is a county council must seek the advice of that authority.
	(2B) The authority must give the district council advice as to the exercise of the function."

Baroness Hanham: This is a small amendment which seeks to achieve the opposite of what was agreed by the Minister earlier. County councils should be able to pass their views upwards. We seek here to ensure that the district council is in a position to advise the county council so that the district council's plans are taken into account in structure plans, or whatever ultimately is done by the county council, to be sure that, as far down the line as possible, the views of the authorities are reflected in the regional spatial strategy and all the plans which go with it. I beg to move.

Lord Hanningfield: I rise to add a word to what has just been said by my noble friend Lady Hanham. This amendment has been sponsored by the County Councils Network and is, I repeat, in line with the Government's own amendment providing that the counties will now have to advise on the regional spatial plan. It is only right that county councils should also reach downwards and advise on district plans. It is obvious that the Government should accept the amendment because it is totally in line with their own earlier amendment which is now part of the Bill.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The amendment is not completely in line with what we have agreed. We have set out our position on this. Amendment No. 109H would in effect make county councils in whose areas there are district councils local planning authorities for the purposes of Part 2 of the Bill. I do not know whether that was the intention of noble Lords opposite, but that is what the amendment would achieve. Amendment No. 102ZA would require district councils to seek advice from county councils when preparing their local development documents, and in turn it would require county councils to give that advice. So the amendment is a little more of a straitjacket.
	We have made clear our views on the role of county councils. Obviously it is sensible that county councils and other authorities with strategic planning expertise should make available to the principal planning authority their advice on strategic issues, but to have the same requirement for preparing local development documents is not as sensible. District councils have long experience of preparing local plans without a statutory requirement to seek advice from county councils. No doubt district councils will benefit from information provided by county councils through their survey functions, and regulations will require county councils to make that information available to district councils as the local planning authority.
	County councils will be involved with every local development document as part of the statutory consultation process, and can form a joint committee with one or more of the district councils in their locality to prepare local development documents in partnership.
	Given all that, it is difficult to see what constructive purpose might be served by Amendment No. 109H. Part 2 makes it clear that local planning authorities are responsible for preparing local development documents. Specifying that county councils are to be local planning authorities would cut right across that and for that reason is not acceptable.
	While we want to see a constructive relationship between the two levels of local government, we cannot have the situation outlined in one of the amendments whereby, in effect, we would have two local planning authorities. That is not tenable and I am sure was not the intention of noble Lords opposite.

Baroness Hanham: I hear the Minister's reply. What we sought was to ensure that county councils seek advice from district councils. However, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply which I shall read in Hansard. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 102A:
	Page 11, line 17, after "must" insert ", in addition to complying with section 38,"

Baroness Hamwee: Amendment No. 102A would provide that the local planning authority should cross-refer Clause 18(5) with Clause 38, covering the general overarching duty towards sustainability. We shall discuss that clause in detail later today. I am sure that sustainability will require more than an appraisal. We want to see it being "mainstreamed" into all that is done by a local planning authority and so I wonder whether appraisal is enough. When one details certain mechanisms, there is a risk that sometimes they will be regarded as the only ones required.
	I have tabled the amendment in part to understand whether, under the provisions of Clause 19, the inspector undertaking the independent examination is required to consider the sustainability appraisal which the local planning authority must carry out. I do not suggest that appraisal is not a good thing, but stressing the importance of observing sustainability principles in everything one does in the same way that, by analogy, local authorities mainstream qualities issues is the way one wants to go. I beg to move.

Lord Cobbold: I do not support this amendment because I have problems with the concept of sustainability. However, I intend to raise those when we reach Clause 38.

Lord Rooker: There is an easy answer to this amendment: it is not necessary. It seeks to make explicit something which is already implicit in how the legislation will operate. Clause 38 places a duty on those responsible for preparing local development documents and therefore applies to local authorities. In exercising their functions, Clause 38 provides that local authorities must consider how the policies and plans set out in the documents they prepare under Clause 18 contribute to the achievement of sustainable development; that is, they must prepare them with a view to contributing to the achievement of sustainable development.
	Local planning authorities must comply with Clause 38 in preparing their local development documents. There is no argument about that. Should one want further clarification, a reading even of Clause 36 covering interpretation makes it clear. A local authority development scheme,
	"must be construed in accordance with section 14",
	covering the local development strategy. Moreover, subsection (2) states that local development documents,
	"must be construed in accordance with section 16".
	In other words, there are cross references throughout the Bill. In preparing the documents, local authorities must comply with Clause 38, the sustainable development clause.
	Under Clause 18(5), to which the amendment seeks to add the wording, the proposals in every local development document will be subject to a sustainability appraisal and a report of the findings will be prepared. What that provides is a process to test draft policies against the achievement of sustainable development. We intend to publish draft guidance on this for consultation in March. I cannot say whether it will be in early or late March.
	The amendment is well intentioned. However, I hope that I have demonstrated that the amendment seeks to add unnecessary words to the Bill. The process will operate as implied in the Bill as drafted.

Lord Avebury: With great respect to the Minister, he did not address my noble friend's question on how Clause 38 would read back into the independent examination of the local authority's activities in producing the development plan documents. In every case, the development plan document has to be subjected to an examination. That is provided for in Clause 19. However, Clause 38 is in a separate part of the Bill. My noble friend asked whether the examination has to cover the local authority's responsibilities under Clause 38 or is limited to whether it has complied with the obligation in this clause to conduct an appraisal. That is somewhat less onerous.

Lord Rooker: Perhaps I may answer that although I am not a lawyer. The provision may be in a different part of the Bill, Part 3, but the clause reads:
	"This section applies to any person who or body which exercises any function . . . under Part 1 in relation to a regional spatial strategy; . . . under Part 2 in relation to local development documents; . . . under Part 6 in relation to the Wales Spatial Plan".
	It is implied that the local development documents will be subject to independent examination. Therefore, the independent examination has to take account of Clause 38, the sustainable development clause.
	With respect, although the provision is in a different part of the Bill there is a direct link back to Part 2 of the Bill.

Baroness Hamwee: The purpose of the independent examination, as described in Clause 19(5), does not refer to Clause 38. However, like the Minister, I had understood Clause 38 to apply over the whole because it is expressed as being necessary in order to do almost anything under the Bill.
	My question related to whether the Government expected the independent examination to extend to the appraisal process. The Minister may well tell me that it is a matter for the inspector to assess whether Clause 38 has been complied with. We shall see as we gain experience of the legislation—perhaps. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, expresses a little scepticism. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 18 agreed to.
	Clause 19 [Independent examination]:

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 102B:
	Page 11, line 31, at beginning insert "they consider"

Baroness Hamwee: In moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 102C to 102G and Amendment No. 102DA standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham.
	The purpose of the independent examination is expressed in Clause 19(5): to determine whether each document satisfies certain requirements and is sound. Amendment No. 102B proposes that the authority must not submit a document unless it has not only complied, but thinks that it has complied, with certain requirements. I can hear the Minister responding that the authority would not submit a document stating that it had complied unless it believed that it had done so.
	However, I became a little puzzled—it must again have been late at night—about the purpose of Clause 19(2). Could the regulations referred to in Clause 19(2) in any way override Clause 19(5)? Can any regulations override what Clause 19(5) sets out to do?
	Amendment No. 102C provides that the Secretary of State will decide whether the examination is to be in the form of a public inquiry or an informal hearing. Clause 19 does not spell out the nature of the examination. I seek clarification. Is it for the inspector to determine the form of the inquiry; or is it for the Secretary of State perhaps in regulations to do so?
	In future, a range of documents will be covered. Some may believe that a full public inquiry is required rather than an informal hearing. Given the importance of some of the documents, one could say that there is a strong case for subjecting them to the full inquiry process. We are all aware of the implications for all stakeholders (I hate that word)—the owners of property, those who propose to develop, and those who have an interest in any area.
	On Amendment No. 102D, I am sure we shall be told that if someone is appointed to carry out an independent examination, it is implicit that that examiner is independent of the Secretary of State. I should like to explore that a little. The examination is independent. I do not want it thought that by deleting the adjective which applies to examination I oppose such independence. However, it seems to me that the carrying out of the examination cannot be independent unless the person carrying it out is also independent. I do not know whether the Government have anything to say about that. The Minister may already have said today that he cannot comment on the planning inspectorate—which moves us out into another pigeon-hole.
	Amendment No. 102E proposes that the examination under Clause 19(5) should be sound "in all material respects". I am not sure whether the term sound is used elsewhere in legislation. If it is not, experience and precedence will grow up as to what is meant by sound. Of course, the term "material" is well understood in the planning world. Although it might seem frivolous to suggest that it does not matter if a document is unsound in a respect that is not material, because of the importance of the subject matter, it is important to be as clear as possible in the Bill.
	Amendment No. 102F proposes that examinations should also look at whether the documents include "achievable mechanisms for implementation"; I know that that is not very elegant wording. I am sure that all Members of the Committee with experience of planning would have swiftly come up against the reality that however great one's policies, unless there are mechanisms to implement them, they are fine words but no more than that. It is appropriate to ask an inspector to look at whether the policies and proposals can be implemented.
	Finally, adding to the criteria that the examinations should address, Amendment No. 102G proposes that the development plan document should also be "robust". I have in mind here that there should be resources to carry that out. A policy or proposal is all very fine, but it may be pie in the sky without resources, and should not be taken forward in a serious fashion. Perhaps I should say that the aspiration should be there to carry it out, but that it needs examination as to whether the local planning authority is being realistic in its proposals. I am delighted to be able to leave the last amendment in the group to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. I beg to move.

Baroness Hanham: I have tabled one amendment in the group, which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, touched on. Amendment No. 102DA questions the meaning of the phrase, "it is sound". That is a very novel use of the phrase, which gives no guidance to the examiners about what ought to be taken into account. I am not sure whether it has any legal connotation; I wonder whether it has appeared in legislation in the past. Perhaps the Minister would kindly give us examples of what might be classified as a sound or an unsound development plan document. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has identified, Clause 19 is flawed in many ways. I cannot see that this particular aspect brings anything to the subject at all; it just adds a degree of vagueness and ambiguity.

Lord Rooker: I look forward to getting to the answer to the question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. We have moved on to an important clause relating to independent examination. As drafted, Clause 19(2)(a) provides that local planning authorities must not submit a development policy document for independent examination unless they have complied with the regulations under Part 2 of the Bill. Amendment No. 102B would allow planning authorities to submit a document if "they consider" that they have complied.
	All authorities must comply with the regulations as a mandatory requirement. We are confident that local planning authorities will be able to satisfy themselves that they have complied with the regulations. That should not be a matter of opinion, so it would not be sensible to add those words to the Bill.
	Amendment No. 102C would expressly require the person appointed by the Secretary of State to hold the examination to decide whether the examination will be in the form of a public inquiry or an informal hearing. As drafted, the Bill effectively provides for that. It is not necessary and it would be too prescriptive to state it explicitly. We have published the draft guide to procedures and code of practice, which sets out what the available options for hearing representations will be.
	The options that the inspector will have to choose from will be informal hearings, "round table" discussions, and formal inquiry sessions. When a person wishes to appear at the examination, the draft guide also sets out the criteria that the inspector will take into account when deciding the process to be followed.
	We expect that the guidance in the final code of practice will be sufficient to provide the necessary level of certainty and clarity to the process. We do not think that rules and regulations in this area will be needed. It is necessary to retain the flexibility to take account of evolving best practice that guidance provides.
	Amendment No. 102D would expressly require the person appointed by the Secretary of State to be independent of him. That is already an implicit requirement: Clause 19 provides for an independent examination. The person appointed to hold the examination will be an inspector employed by the Planning Inspectorate who is experienced and trained in dealing with the independent examination of planning matters.
	Amendment No. 102DA would remove the test of whether the development plan document is sound. That would limit the purpose of the independent examination to assessing whether the development plan document satisfies the procedural requirements of the Bill. The test of soundness is a central principle in the new system. To remove it would undermine much of the ethos of the Bill. It is entirely unnecessary to do so.
	I do not know whether the term "sound" has been used before in legislation. That is not to say that I do not know, but that I am checking: I have just been told that I do not know. I do not want to leave colleagues wondering whether I will receive another note: we do not know whether the term "sound" has been used before.
	Under the current system, the primary role of the public local inquiry is to consider objections made to draft local plans or unitary development plans. Other parts of the draft, which are not the subject of objections, are outside the remit of the inquiry. However, the fact that a policy or proposal has not been objected to does not always mean that it is not deficient in some way.
	Clause 19 provides for the scope of the independent examination to be wider than at present. The inspector will look at how the document has been prepared having regard to the regulations, guidance and the statement of community involvement. He—often it will be a she—will consider all the representations made on the entire document, and not just those parts on which representations have been made. That is, the document will be looked at in the round. Is it fit for the purpose? Is it a sound document? Even though there are areas where there have been no objections, the inspector is still entitled to test the entire document.
	Amendments Nos. 102E, 102F and 102G seek to amplify what an inspector should consider in examining whether a development plan is sound. Paragraph 4.4.8 of draft planning policy statement 12 sets out what the test of soundness involves. The amendments do not add to these. We see no reason why we should add to the Bill in any way. The inspector must of course act reasonably at all times, so if something is trivial or irrelevant it need not be considered. Adding the words, "in all material respects", "and includes achievable mechanisms for implementation" or "and robust" to Clause 19 is unnecessary. The requirement that plans should be robust and have clear mechanisms for implementation is already set out in planning policy statement 12.
	To sum up, there is a definition in paragraph 4.4.8 of planning policy statement 12 (on page 28) that sets out the criteria for soundness. Planning policy statement 12 also makes clear that the examination into the soundness of the plan includes whether the proper procedures have been carried out, including the sustainability appraisal and the strategic environmental assessment that is required under the European directive on strategic environmental assessment.
	As regards the specific question that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked me, the reference to regulations in Clause 19(2)(a) is to the regulations covering the procedure for preparing the development policy document. The examination could find under 19(5)(a) that the authority had not complied with these regulations. I hope that is a helpful explanation and a good and sound answer to her original question.

Baroness Hamwee: The issue of whether the term has been used in legislation before is an important one. We have been referred to precedents in other debates on this Bill and I am not sure that I am entirely comfortable—I do not mean today—having to leave the matter hanging. It may perhaps be difficult to confirm a negative. I appreciate that. But it would be more comfortable if one were clear on this matter.

Lord Rooker: I am obviously uncomfortable: I have given an unsound answer. I will cause a search to be made for Parliamentary Counsel—that is the person who I need to ask about this matter regarding where this term has been used before. It is a fairly simple question to which there should be a straightforward answer.

Baroness Hamwee: The Minister is robust and has mechanisms for implementation! I thank him for his response and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 102C to 102G not moved.]

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 102GA:
	Page 12, line 7, at end insert "and reasons"

Baroness Hanham: I am two pages ahead of myself. In moving this amendment I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 103D, 108ZZB and 113C. All these amendments refer to the publishing of reasons.
	Amendment No. 102GA requires the local authority to publish the reasons for the recommendation of an independent examiner; Amendment No. 103D requires a local planning authority to publish reasons for withdrawing a document; Amendment No. 108ZZB requires a planning authority to publish its reasons for making a request or a revocation; and Amendment No. 113C requires the Secretary of State to provide reasons.
	As the Bill stands, the person appointed to carry out the examinations must make recommendations and give reasons for the recommendations, but the local authority need only publish the recommendations and not the reasons. It is consistently seen throughout much of the Bill that anything that is done in the form of recommendations should be published and the reasons given. Generally there is much to be gained from giving and publishing reasons: it makes the decision-making procedure much more open and predictable, and that logic certainly applies here. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: There are four amendments in this group. The short reply would be, in terms of the amendments: yes, no, no, yes. I had better explain why. We are happy to accept the spirit of Amendment No. 102G and give it reasonable consideration because it was our intention to do so. We do not think Amendment No. 103D is necessary. Regulations will require authorities to publish a statement whenever a local development document is withdrawn. We would expect authorities to explain their reasons for withdrawing the statement. We will emphasise that in the guidance.
	We reject Amendment No. 108ZZB simply because we expect it will rarely be necessary for the Secretary of State to use the power of revocation. In those circumstances we do not consider it necessary to require local planning authorities to publish their reasons for requesting revocation. However, where the reason is not obvious it is a matter of good practice that we would expect the local planning authority to make clear why the local development document is to be revoked. That is something we can clarify when we revise draft planning policy statement 12.
	Amendment No. 113C follows on from the first amendment and, as I have made clear, we are quite content to accept the spirit of that amendment and bring something back having given it more consideration.
	The Bill, with its regulations and guidance taken together, will in our view provide transparent and robust arrangements for the regional local plan process. We want to ensure there is more of that transparency in the Bill, so I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for moving the amendments. We are working in comity on this one, with a measure of agreement. If the noble Baroness is happy to withdraw the amendments today, we will come back having considered how we can perfect Amendments Nos. 102GA and 113C, though we may find that we do not have to do very much more to them.

Baroness Hanham: I am always nervous when the Minister is at his most conciliatory, but I will quit while I am winning. His reply suggested that the Government will bring back amendments. If the Minister would be kind enough to let me know what decisions have been made about putting them into regulations or introducing amendments, I would be most grateful.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Just to help the noble Baroness, perhaps in bringing back our own amendments we should ensure that she has an early draft so that it is understood what we are trying to achieve and that we achieve the same objective as is sought in her amendments.

Baroness Hanham: I am definitely quitting while I am winning. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 19 agreed to.
	Clause 20 [Intervention by Secretary of State]:

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 102GB:
	Page 12, line 9, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
	"(1) If it appears to the Secretary of State that it is expedient to do so for the purpose of avoiding—
	(a) any inconsistency with current national policies or the RSS, or
	(b) any detriment to the interests of an area outside the area of the local planning authority,
	he may at any time before the document is adopted under section 22 direct the local planning authority to modify the document in accordance with the direction."

Baroness Hanham: In moving these amendments I would like to make it clear that I shall not move Amendment No. 103B but I will move Amendments Nos. 102GB and 103C. Amendment No. 102GB in this group is tabled to provide some clarity. We believe that the Secretary of State should be given some parameters when deciding whether to have a local authority modify its local development documents. Contained within this amendment are all the necessary reasons for the Secretary of State to give a direction.
	Subsection (1) is too loosely phrased. Local authorities, when preparing their documents, need to know exactly what factors the Secretary of State would consider unsatisfactory. If the Minister is not content with this amendment, then maybe he can identify other circumstances in which the Secretary of State would wish to direct a local authority.
	I have tabled Amendment No. 103C because it is not necessary to include subsections (7) and (8). The Minister will know that, in such circumstances, the Secretary of State is obliged, as a matter of public law, to consider relevant matters.
	I would also like, if I may, to use the amendment to voice my concern at some of the woolly language in the Bill. We discussed that with regard to previous amendments. In subsection (7), I think, the word "thinks" slips in. I am sure that nobody should be allowed to think in legislation; they might be allowed to "believe", but I am sure that thinking is beyond them. I beg to move.

Baroness Turner of Camden: If the amendment is carried, I cannot call Amendment No. 102H, owing to pre-emption.

Lord Rooker: The noble Baroness might get an answer to the amendment that she did not move. The way that the notes are drafted means that they are inclusive. Sometimes, it is easier if the amendments are grouped.
	I do not know why the word "thinks" is in subsection (7). I shall find out if there is a previous example of the word "think" being used in primary legislation. As the noble Baroness has raised the matter, she deserves an answer.
	Amendment No. 102GB would enable the Secretary of State to direct a modification of a local development document only when that was needed to avoid any inconsistency with current national policies or the regional spatial strategy or any detriment to the interests of an area outside the local planning authority's area. He would not be able to direct changes, if he thought the document unsatisfactory. It is a well established principle, enshrined in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990—the principal Act—that the Secretary of State should have powers to intervene in local planning.
	The powers in Clause 20 are modelled on the Secretary of State's current powers in Section 18 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The amendment would unacceptably constrain the Secretary of State. Along with Amendment No. 103C, which I shall address later, it would dilute the Secretary of State's intervention powers, and there is a risk that they might prove to be inadequate. The Secretary of State needs to be able to direct a change to a local development document, not just on the grounds of inconsistency with national policies or the regional spatial strategy. A spatial policy document may, for example, be worded opaquely, so that no one would be able to agree how to implement it. A development policy document might not be sound, or the local planning authority might not have met the statutory requirements in Clause 19(5)(a). The power is an important safeguard in a system with binding inspectors' reports.
	Amendment No. 103B would mean that, if the Secretary of State had called in a development plan document for his approval, he may further direct that the document was to have no effect until he had approved it. A document may be called in because there were problems with it, and they need to be solved before it becomes part of the development plan. The Secretary of State needs to be able to call in all or part of a development plan document, if the local planning authority has not complied with a direction to modify. That is the main circumstance in which we see the power under Clause 20(4) being used.
	If the decision has been taken that a document or part of a document must be called in for the Secretary of State to approve, the document should have no effect, until it is finally approved by the Secretary of State. That should be an automatic consequence of a call-in, rather than the onus being on the Secretary of State to direct that a document may continue to have an effect.
	Amendment No. 103C will probably not be moved. The Secretary of State may need to call in a development plan document because the local planning authority has failed to take account of all relevant matters. It would be wrong to require the Secretary of State to make the same mistake, in fact. We need the safeguard that the Secretary of State can consider all matters, regardless of whether the local planning authority has done so.
	I hope that that is a satisfactory explanation of why the powers are in the Bill. As I said, they are modelled on powers in the principal legislation.

Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for that reply. He raised the question that we will probably now move on to in other amendments about the binding nature of the inspector's powers. I thank him for his explanation, particularly about the factors included in the Town and Country Planning Act. That matter had escaped me, but I am grateful for his reply, and I shall read Hansard. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 102H and 103 not moved.]

Baroness Maddock: moved Amendment No. 103A:
	Page 12, line 33, leave out paragraph (d) and insert—
	"(d) the document may be taken into account for the purposes of development control by the authority until the Secretary of State has approved, modified or rejected the document or (if the direction relates to only part of the document) part of the document"

Baroness Maddock: Amendment No. 103A would enable development plan documents that have been agreed by a local planning authority but are still subject to a direction by the Secretary of State to be treated as material considerations for development control purposes, while someone is waiting for the final decision by the Secretary of State on the document.
	Any development plan document agreed by a local planning authority should reflect the authority's intention for the area covered by the document. The only obstacle to its adoption is the intervention of the Secretary of State. The outcome of the direction may be modification of the document. In the interim, it would be reasonable for the local planning authority to use it as a basis for development control decisions. If nothing else, it would encourage the Secretary of State to proceed speedily with his intention in the matter. I beg to move.

Baroness Turner of Camden: If this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 103B, owing to pre-emption.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, explained perfectly the effect of her amendment. It would allow planning applications, for example, to be considered against policies that the Secretary of State then finds so flawed as to warrant rejection. It could create considerable chaos. To our way of thinking, that is unacceptable.
	We expect that, in common with the current system, draft local development documents may be material considerations in development control decisions. The weight to be attached to them in decision making may increase, the further they proceed towards adoption. That is right because the closer that a document gets to adoption, the more the likelihood of it changing decreases. However, that general position should not apply to development plan documents that the Secretary of State has called in. A document will be called in only if the Secretary of State considers that it warrants it and thinks that it should not proceed to adoption without further consideration.
	The Secretary of State may approve, approve with modifications or reject a called-in document. He may decide to approve a document without further modifications, but that cannot, obviously, be known in advance. It is important that development control decisions are based on sound policies. The power of call-in should not be used lightly, and I assure the Committee that the Secretary of State will exercise the power only in exceptional circumstances. Because of that, we do not think that it would be sensible to allow documents that have been called in to be taken into account in what can be sensitive development control matters.
	For those reasons, I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Maddock: I hope that the Minister is right and that the Secretary of State will not call in lots of documents. If that is to be the case, there is less need for the amendment. My noble friend and I will ponder what the Minister said, but, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 103B and 103C not moved.]
	Clause 20 agreed to.
	Clause 21 [Withdrawal of local development document]:
	[Amendment No. 103D not moved.]

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 103E:
	Page 13, line 7, leave out subsection (2).

Baroness Hanham: With the other amendments, we begin to move into the question of the binding nature of inspectors' decisions. Amendment No. 103E deals with why a local authority, even after it has submitted its development plan, should not be allowed to withdraw it again if for some reason it believes that it needs to be modified or contains some measure that it does not like. I appreciate that it can do that at any time until the moment it lodges the document. However, it cannot do so once the inspector has begun to consider the document. My amendment would ensure that it could withdraw that document at any time.
	Amendment No. 103F seeks to leave out,
	"(other than a development plan document)",
	because it does not seem to make sense. A local planning authority may adopt a local development document other than a development plan document. I should welcome the Minister's explanation of the difference between the two.
	Amendment No. 104 replicates an amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee; namely, to insert a sub-paragraph (c) to allow a local planning authority to take account of any recommendations made by the person appointed to carry out the independent examination of the document.
	Amendment No. 106, which seeks to leave out subsections (2) to (4), brings us to the question why a local planning authority can only adopt a development plan document if it has effectively been authorised by the inspector.
	There is a great deal of concern that local development plans will be constructed by local authorities on the basis of consultation and will then go forward to an inquiry. As matters stand at the moment, the inspector's recommendations are for a unitary development plan. With this situation, the inspector's recommendations are binding. That begs the question why the views of the local authority and those of the local community should be overridden by the inspector and that he should be able to insist on the developments and on the recommendations being made after he has put them forward.
	Amendment No. 106ZA is a major amendment, which seeks to challenge the position of the binding recommendations. The amendment proposes that where the inspector has made a decision, it should not in certain circumstances be absolutely final and that there should be an opportunity for the local authority in effect to appeal those decisions and have a number of factors re-examined. The essential point is that these development plans are put together for local consumption, for local development control, after consultation with local people and the statement of community involvement has been lodged, and that there should be at least some route whereby local authorities can go back to the inspector with questions and obtain a redetermination of what has been said. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, has asked some important questions on this group of amendments. I therefore hope that she will forgive the length of my reply.
	As the noble Baroness said, Amendment No. 103E would extend an authority's ability to withdraw a development planning document after its submission for independent examination. It would also remove the power of the Secretary of State to direct that the development planning document be withdrawn after its submission for examination. Our view is that no authority should need to withdraw a development planning document once the examination has started, provided that it has done its job properly. The development planning document should be submitted in the form in which the local planning authority wants to see it adopted.
	As the pre-submission processes are expected to be thorough, each authority should have sufficient scope to address any difficult issues and prepare a sound plan. The withdrawal of a development planning document by an authority during or after the examination would undermine the investment that it had made in the preparation of the document. It would also be a waste of community investment and effort in the plan-making process. The withdrawal of a development planning document after submission for examination will, of course, slow the process. That is why the power to do it is restricted to the inspector and the Secretary of State.
	However, the Bill caters for situations in which a withdrawal is necessary. As presently drafted, subsection (2)(a) allows the independent inspector to recommend a withdrawal. Representations could highlight, for example, serious defects in the development planning document that the examination and the inspector's recommendations may not be able to rectify. It is right that in such a situation there should be a mechanism for withdrawing the document. That is the ultimate purpose of the Secretary of State's power under Clause 21(2)(b)to direct a withdrawal, although it is likely to be exercised following a request from a local planning authority.
	There should be no scope for a local planning authority to be able to withdraw a development planning document, after its submission for examination, in an attempt to avoid recommendations emerging from the examination. I am not suggesting that local planning authorities would do that, but we do not believe that there should be any scope for them to be able to do it. The Secretary of State will not use that power without serious consideration. He is obviously under a general duty to act reasonably and will consult local people and organisations before directing that the document be withdrawn.
	Amendments Nos. 105, 106 and 106ZA raise the issue of whether inspectors' reports should be binding on local planning authorities. Taken together with our other reforms, inspectors' binding reports are a key to speeding up the plan-making system and enhancing community involvement in it. Binding reports will cut out the stage at the end of the process following the inquiry, referred to as the modification stage. If a further inquiry into a modification is needed, that process can take six months or longer.
	The new approach for authorities and interested parties is that we want all the options and ideas that could form part of the final document to be clear for everyone to see at the outset. There is an incentive for early discussion and decisions, rather than leaving key matters to be settled right at the end of the process. Binding reports will not mean that local communities will have fewer opportunities than they currently have to influence the content of the document. Under our new approach, the community will be involved in preparing the documents from the start of the process. Authorities will no longer be able to fail to act on an inspector's recommendations that are soundly based on an independent examination and representations made.
	Concern has been expressed that an inspector may make changes to a development plan document that had not been considered at the examination. However, the inspector will be able to recommend a substantive change to a development plan document only if people have had an opportunity to make representations on it, or it has been considered at the examination itself and the representations or debate support it. If the inspector believes that a development plan document should be changed significantly in some other way, that could happen only if the examination is reconvened to consider the matter; otherwise, the matter would have to be dealt with by referring the development plan document to the local planning authority for further consideration.
	Our key concern is having up-to-date plans. This is best for communities and has been the policy that we have clearly set out from the beginning. Amendment No. 106ZA would add a new stage to the process. It would give the authority a power to ask the inspector to reconsider any of his recommendations or the need for further changes. The authority would be able to do this if it considered that circumstances had changed; if the inspector had made an error of fact; if, in interpreting a policy, there was a legal error in a recommendation or the reasons for it; if the proper procedure for the examination had not been followed; or if a recommendation was unclear.
	The inspector would have a duty to reconsider whatever the authority requested. He would have the power to make further recommendations, revise or expand on his reasons and, indeed, reopen the examination or invite further representations. So if a problem is raised there should always be a way of addressing it. There is no question about that. We believe that serious mistakes will rarely happen but, if they do, we have put in place a number of safeguards.
	If people believe that an inspector has made a simple error of fact or omission, they can ask the local planning authority to bring the matter to the attention of the planning inspectorate, which will obtain the inspector's views. If necessary, the inspector will issue an addendum report to correct the error or omission.
	Under Clause 20, the Secretary of State will have the power to direct changes to a development plan document or call in the document before it is adopted and make modifications to it if needed. If a local planning authority felt that the inspector's recommendations were unreasonable it could ask the Secretary of State to consider using these powers.
	Finally, any person who is aggrieved by the adoption of a development plan document will be able to challenge the document under Clause 109 on the ground that it is not within the powers of the Bill or that a procedural step has not been complied with. We believe that these safeguards cover the ground and minimise the risk that they will be used to frustrate the delay in the plan-making process.
	I have given a long explanation but this is an important issue. As with one or two other provisions, it is an innovative part of the Bill. It is a part of the new process that the inspector's report shall be binding. I hope therefore that my explanation has been satisfactory.

Lord Greaves: The Minister rightly says that this is an important part of the Bill. It introduces a substantial change in the balance of power between central government, as represented by the inspector, and local government, as represented by the local planning authority.
	At the moment, in existing local plans the inspector's recommendations are simply recommendations; they are not binding on the local authority. The local authority considers the inspector's report and his recommendations and decides what to do about them. The Minister said that this causes a delay, on average, of six months. But if a local authority is forced to accept changes that it believes to be fundamentally wrong, the delays involved later—when planning applications are made and so on—may have to compensate for that saving of six months.
	But, putting that on one side, the Minister is saying that, for the sake of saving six months in the system, local authorities—elected local councils—are to be deprived of the right to say that they do not agree with the recommendations of the inspector. At the moment, as I understand it, the inspector's report is to the local authority and the local authority then decides what to do with it. This is similar to other aspects of the Bill where inspector's reports are to the Secretary of State. There will be occasions when the Secretary of State will not agree with an inspector's report on a compulsory purchase order or a planning application and so on.
	This is a fundamental issue. It is a fundamental removal of the powers that a local council has at the moment but which it will not have in the future. So my first question is whether the Minister really believes that this centralisation of power is justified?
	Secondly, does he not understand that local communities which are told what has to happen—which are told, for example, how a particular piece of land has to be zoned and so on—in one of the new documents will be very angry indeed that such decisions are taken by one man, the appointed inspector? They will have no influence over him, other than making representations, as opposed to the local authority that represents them, whether or not they agree with it.
	Thirdly, why does the Minister continue to use the word "recommend" in relation to the decision of the inspector when he will no longer be making recommendations to the local council but instructing it? Why does not the Bill include the word "instruct" rather than "recommend" in the convoluted way in which compulsion is set out in the wording of the Bill?
	Finally, what will be the situation if, having received the inspector's report, the local authority says that some of the matters in it are so wrong that it is not going to adopt the local plan? Clause 22 states three times that the local planning authority "may" adopt a local development document. It then states that it must not adopt a development plan document unless it does so in accordance with subsections (2) and (3).
	The clause does not state that a local planning authority "must" adopt the document. So if compulsion is involved, why does it not state "must"? What will happen if the local authority resolves to reject the inspector's report and the whole local development document, lock, stock and barrel, because of some of the recommendations made by the inspector?

Viscount Ullswater: I tend to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. We started off by saying that regional planning guidance would now become the regional spatial strategy and we are moving in exactly the same direction on this issue—the reports of inspectors will become mandatory in the same way that regional planning guidance was in the first instance. Does the Minister believe that the balance is right between what will now be statutory and the implementation of the inspector's report on what is a locally agreed document?

Lord Rooker: By and large, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has got the message. I did not try to sugar coat it. I explained that this was an innovative part of the process. He has got me absolutely bang to rights—there will be a change. We do not seek to gloss over that.
	However, I take exception to one matter that he described. I do not see that there will be a gladiatorial contest, as the noble Lord put it, and that the inspector is there to represent central government. That is not the case legally. That is not how the inspectors are appointed or trained to function. They simply do not have the role, as he put it, that they are there to produce a binding report on behalf of central government and to knock out our friends in local government; therefore it is the end of democracy as we have come to know and love it. That is an exaggeration—although it is my exaggeration and not that of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves.
	But, yes, there will be a fundamental change. It is not being made simply to save six months. There is, however, one point that I did not raise—mainly because it stated "if needed" in my brief and I thought that I would wait and see; it is rather a long speaking note. I do not—as I understood the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, to say—call into question the sincerity or competence of the inspectors, but problems with inspectors' reports on development plans are rare under the present system. Of 15 complaints about either the conduct of the development plan inquiries or the contents of the inspectors' reports over the past two years, only one was found to be justified. So it is quite rare.

Lord Avebury: How was it found to be justified?

Lord Rooker: Let me put it this way, we have inspectors watching the inspectors. They are not called that, but inspectors employed on development plan inquiries are very experienced, regularly trained and closely monitored by the advisory panel on standards. There is a panel of people. I met them when I was planning Minister and they brought one of their reports to me. They inspect the inspectors. They report to the ODPM and we publish the reports. Indeed, we publish everything. There is therefore a check. There is a method of complaining.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: Does the Minister accept that there is every difference in the world in the way in which one deals with what might be called a rogue planning decision—and I accept, after 14 years' involvement in planning, that they are rare? I think that my noble friend Lord Greaves was referring to this when he mentioned centralisation. In the creation of its plan, a local authority will of course have regard to national policy, but its prime focus and locus will be its locality and what it sees as best. That decision will be informed by the views of the local people whom it represents. However, the processes that planning inspectors will go through will be guided by government guidance—by national policies. Therefore, they will not be so cognisant of what is happening locally.
	It is intriguing that, in the debate on an earlier set of amendments, the Minister made a rather scathing reference. He said that we all know local authorities that do not want to make a decision locally so they pass the buck to the inspector. However, it is precisely because that is not the case that we have more value in the current system. In the end, the buck stops very firmly with the elected local authority.

Lord Rooker: With respect, I must say that it is precisely the case. The noble Baroness said that that is not the case, but it is. It does happen. As I said, councils must give leadership. Planning officers and councillors must give leadership on this matter. They take decisions about planning matters close to their localities. Members of Parliament do not do that, so there is a lot more pressure on councillors to give a lead. Sometimes, that can be burdensome. One way of dealing with that is to refuse the decision, let it go to appeal and then complain saying, "It's nothing to do with me Guv. It was the inspector and the Secretary of State". The noble Baroness has a lot more experience in local government than I have, but I know that that has happened.
	However, the point that I was making was that such problems relate to the inspectors' report on development plans. They are very rare. I do not think that this is a matter of centralisation. Inspectors must follow a set of rules. They must follow the guidelines, look at national policy and look at this legislation as we have gone through it. They must act reasonably in that process. In the most extreme cases, if a decision is perverse and the Secretary of State has not been involved, it is always open to a local authority to seek a judicial review of an inspector's decision, even though it might be reluctant to do that. I realise that that is the nuclear option, but it is always there. Therefore, I do not accept that this is over-centralisation. It is an innovation in the planning process, designed, as we have said all along, to get faster decisions but to be no less fair.

Lord Greaves: Does the Minister understand that there is a very real difference between these situations? An inspector may behave unprofessionally or incompetently or not carry out the due process of the inquiry process. Perhaps he does things wrong technically and people are not allowed properly to put their views forward or present their case. That situation would therefore fall into the 1 per cent of cases.
	On the other hand, issues about the use of land are often, when it comes down to it, a matter of opinion. All the factors may have been considered, government advice and the views of local people taken and so forth, but ultimately, many decisions come down to opinion. They are 50:50 cases in which a decision has to be made one way or the other. Under those circumstances, it is not a question of the inspector being wrong or incompetent: it is a matter of principle. Should the elected local authority responsible to local people—and responsible for the provision of jobs as well as the use of land—be the final arbiter, as it is now? Or, should the decision be in the hands of one man or woman who may or may not represent central government? Whoever they represent, they do not represent the electors of that area. The Minister is not facing that fundamental principle.

Lord Rooker: I have faced it. The answer is that the decision should be independent. It rests with the inspector.

Lord Greaves: We fundamentally disagree about that, and we may return to the matter. However, will the Minister answer my question? What happens if the local authority is so incensed or believes that the inspector's decision is so wrong that it refuses to adopt the local planning document?

Lord Rooker: I will take advice and return to the matter later, but, off the top of my head, I suspect that, as the decision is binding and mandatory, there is no choice in the matter. An independent decision has been arrived at. If there is no legal challenge to it, local authorities can be incensed, but it would stand.

Lord Greaves: Where in the Bill does it say that the decision is binding and mandatory?

Lord Rooker: We have just been debating that. Surely, the noble Lord has been on his feet complaining about the inspectors' reports being binding. That is what he has been complaining about for the past 10 minutes.

Lord Greaves: The Minister said that it was binding, but as far as I can see, Clause 22 uses the phrase,
	"may adopt a development plan document",
	three times. That does not sound binding. Therefore, I am far from clear about what this legislation means in practice, should the nuclear option be reached.

Lord Rooker: I direct the noble Lord to Clause 26, which will answer his question. The Secretary of State should be able to approve a development plan document after the examination of the binding report. I will put a couple of paragraphs on the record because there is a power in Clause 26. There may be times when, after due process of examination, an inspector recommends in his binding report a change that the authority does not want to implement. If the authority decides not to adopt the development plan document, the Secretary of State has the default power in Clause 20(9) to approve the document. Without that power, all the work put into the document by the authority, the inspector and those involved in its preparation and examination would be wasted, and the area would not have an up-to-date plan. The report is binding. There is a default power and it is tough, but it is a much better system than the one we have at the moment.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: Does the Minister stand by his earlier comments that this is not a centralising measure?

Lord Rooker: I absolutely stand by those comments.

Lord Greaves: I am grateful for that explanation. I am sorry that I have not memorised clauses that we have not yet discussed. I have read them, but clearly have not understood everything in great detail. It is clear that, should it come to the nuclear option, there is a centralisation of power, with central government and the Secretary of State taking the decision as opposed to the local authority, which holds the power the moment. However the Minister protests, he cannot get away from that.

Lord Rooker: I am not buying that at all. We have spent most of the day going over how these documents are put together, with the statements of community involvement, and much greater involvement by the community than ever before—from the very beginning, not the end. Therefore, I will not accept or leave unchallenged the charge that the system is being centralised, that local communities are not involved and that there is no consultation. Indeed, some would argue that this part of the Bill has "consultationitis". I do not accept that this is centralising the system.

Baroness Hanham: My amendments have generated a hive of activity. This matter may raise its head again at a later stage. The Minister said several things that caused me great concern. He rightly pointed out that local authorities and those who run them have a power of leadership. The changes that the Government made to the management of local authorities—changing the structure into cabinets—gave greater responsibility to councillors and made it their duty to undertake precisely that role of community leadership. Once we have been through this process of discussion about the plans, the community leadership role has been invoked by the local council, and it has agreed that it now has a local plan that is right, having had that scrutiny. Is the Minister listening? This is not terribly exciting, and he can read it tomorrow, but I shall say it anyway.
	Having had the scrutiny of the local community, the local plan should, we believe, include an inspector's view as regards the unitary development plan. However, unlike the arrangements for the unitary development plan, the inspector will make the final decision that that is a final document. The local authority will finally have to adopt a document as amended, changed and recommended by the inspector. The Minister says that that is to speed up the process. If taking local responsibility away is the price for speeding up development plans, then the Government have got it wrong. We have to try to build back into the Bill the right of the local authority to have the final say in its development plans.
	The Minister has been discussing the consultation process and how wonderful it will be with a statement of community involvement. However, no amount of statements of community involvement will have the slightest effect if there is not a proper process of consultation. As I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, will remember, consultation was one of the matters that held up the unitary development plans. One of the fundamental parts of the unitary development plan was the requirement for local consultation and local involvement. Indeed, I have sat deep into the night at many a unitary development plan meeting ensuring that the local residents—all four of them—had a proper and constructive role in developing the local development plan.
	The other point is that the inspectors do not always get it right. They do not have the local knowledge. However hard one tries, there are always complaints about inspectors, even in the planning applications appeals process. They wander in and make completely off-the-wall decisions that bear no relation to what is going on. I have received many such examples, but I shall give only one. The local planning inspector for Birmingham City Council recently recommended that the unitary development plan should remove key employment sites from the plan. That was contrary to both the current and the emerging regional planning guidance. Key development sites are fundamental. They are part and parcel of what ought to be known. To have a recommendation that they be taken out shows a rank disengagement, if nothing else, with the process. There are all kinds of examples that I could quote and I am sure that I shall quote them next time we come to this matter because they are there.
	The Local Government Association does not have many reservations because it has had a lot of input into the Bill. However, this aspect, a binding inspector's recommendation, rattles everybody in local government. I hear what the Minister says, I do not agree with him and we shall return to this matter at a later stage. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 21 agreed to.
	Clause 22 [Adoption of local development documents]:
	[Amendments Nos. 103F to 106ZA not moved.]
	Clause 22 agreed to.
	Clause 23 [Conformity with regional strategy]:

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 106ZB:
	Page 13, line 31, leave out "local development" and insert "development plan"

Baroness Hanham: There are a number of amendments in four groupings that relating to Clause 23. It will therefore come as no surprise to the Minister that we have concerns about Clause 23. We particularly want to go into detail with this Clause to prevent local development documents having to be in general conformity with the regional strategy. We have had a lot of discussion on regional strategies and on the current and future role of regional planning guidance. As things currently stand, local authorities are not required to follow the Secretary of State's policy. The planning guidance is guidance. The new policies lead us into areas where again there is no choice whether a local authority or a planning authority follows guidance: it has to take account of it and it has to be part of the regional strategy.
	The first group of amendments, Amendments Nos. 106ZB to 106ZN, confines the duty to be in general conformity only to development plan documents, not to all local plan documents; that is the duty to comply. Development plan documents are defined in Clause 36(3) and at present the obligations of general conformity apply between development plan documents, structure plans and local plans. Our view is that it is unnecessary to apply the obligation to other local development documents. The relative unimportance of general conformity of non-development plan documents is shown by Clause 23(2)(b) and Clause 23(4)(b) where there is discretion whether the local planning authority asks the regional planning body or the mayor for an opinion on conformity. That is the first group for Clause 23. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: As the noble Baroness said, we have reached another clause about which there is some concern. I have a longer note for the beginning of the group than for the others, which I hope puts the clause in context. I shall address the issue of general conformity as a concept and why we think it is important.
	General conformity provides an important link between the regional and local levels. It ensures that the regional spatial strategy or the mayor's spatial development strategy, as appropriate, is properly translated into policies and proposals at the local level. Without a general conformity requirement, as exists at present in relation to the spatial development strategy, strategic planning cannot be delivered effectively. Once the ground rules have been set in the regional spatial strategy, the local planning authority can prepare its own policies reflecting its community involvement and appraisal of sustainability, provided that the local development document remains in general conformity with it; that is, the regional spatial strategy. As I said in response to an earlier amendment, this is a test of general, not detailed, conformity.
	We shall make it clear in the final version of planning policy statement 12 that it is the Government's policy that it is only where a local development document would cause significant harm to the implementation of the regional spatial strategy that the local development document should be considered not to be in general conformity.
	The chain of conformity between local development documents set out in the draft regulations simplifies the application of the test of general conformity. The core strategy should generally conform with the spatial vision and strategy in the regional spatial strategy. As we move down the chain of local development documents we would expect few interventions in respect of general conformity.
	Other development plan documents must be in conformity with the core strategy. Supplementary planning documents, which we have referred to several times, are dependent on the parent development plan documents. They depend on them and are supplementary to them. So, provided that a core strategy is in general conformity with the regional spatial strategy, the other development plan documents and the supplementary planning documents are likely to be in general conformity too.
	It is important to provide that the supplementary planning documents—that is, those that do not go to independent examination—should be in general conformity as a safeguard in case the chain of conformity to which I have referred does not work. Although supplementary planning documents should not allocate land, it can contain policies as well as the guidance, examples of which I gave earlier.
	We have provided in draft regulation 13 that the policies in a supplementary planning document should be in conformity with the policies in the core strategy and with the policies in any other development plan document. Although that is fairly clear, I will read it again. We have provided in draft regulation 13—on which we have been consulting—that the policies in a supplementary planning document should be in conformity with the policies in the core strategy and with the policies in any other development plan document. Otherwise it would hardly be supplementary. It is a daughter document to the main document.
	That requirement may not be a sufficient safeguard in every case against a local planning authority trying to slip policies into a supplementary planning document to get round the constraint of the development plan document policies having to be in general conformity with the regional spatial strategy. Although that will be construed as an attack on local government, it is not. I really mean that. Nevertheless, because of the new system, we need to have this safeguard against any local planning authority trying to slip policies into part of a document that does not conform with the general regional spatial strategy.
	We have to check whether that is the case. To help do so, the clause requires the local planning authority to request the written opinion of the regional planning body, or the mayor if appropriate, if the document is a development plan document, and it enables the authority to do so if the document is a supplementary planning document. That is an entirely sensible arrangement and I can see no benefit in deleting those powers. The arrangement is straightforward and not centralist. It is not an attack on local democracy. With that explanation, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.

Baroness Hanham: The more I hear the Minister say that the arrangement is not centralist the more I know that it is. Anyway, I think that the word is "centralising"; at least that is the word that I would use.
	Although I hear what the Minister says, this is yet another area where local government is being stitched up one way or another. This whole system of plans and their relationship to the regional spatial strategy is of the greatest concern, particularly now that the Minister says that part of it is intended to stop local government slipping—slipping!—policies into daughter documents. Now there is a thing. Who would think that anyone would do that? If the whole of this paraphernalia is to prevent that, then I think we have a tower of Babel that we may need to knock down at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 106ZC:
	Page 13, line 32, leave out paragraph (a).

Baroness Hanham: I am in some difficulty about this amendment which I shall state quite frankly. The amendment relates specifically to Clause 37—on which I should like to have a discussion at the appropriate time. It is all about the relationship of the London development plan to the development plans of London boroughs. The amendments in this group remove the requirement for local development documents to be in general conformity with the regional spatial strategy. As a result, it leaves unaltered London's position with regard to a spatial development strategy. I will not be any more enigmatic than that; we will reach that provision later. The Minister's reply may be helpful, but I needed to pick up the point now. The purpose of the amendments is to leave the London position unchanged. I beg to move.

Baroness Turner of Camden: If this amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 106ZD because of pre-emption.

Lord Rooker: I shall attempt to reply to the point now although I am quite happy to return to it when, as the noble Baroness says, we reach the other clause. My notes do not deal with every amendment, but I hope that she will get the general gist of the position when she reads Hansard tomorrow. I will try not to repeat the general points that I made on the first group.
	Amendment No. 106ZE seeks to remove the requirement that the local planning authorities outside London must request the written opinion of the regional planning body on the general conformity of a development planning document within the regional spatial strategy and the requirement that it may seek this opinion in respect of a spatial planning document. It also seeks to remove the regional planning body's duty to provide this opinion to the Secretary of State and the local planning authority. As I said, that is an entirely sensible arrangement to help assess whether the development planning documents are in general conformity.
	Amendment No. 106ZL would give a power to the mayor and the regional planning body to give an opinion on the general conformity of a local development document, irrespective of whether the local planning authority asks for it. That is unnecessary as it is already provided for by Clause 23(5).
	As to Amendment No. 106ZB, where a regional planning body expresses an opinion that a development plan document is not in conformity, it is right for that to be taken as a representation seeking a change to the document. That ensures that the regional planning body may appear at the independent examination.
	Because I want to help the noble Baroness, and particularly because she will be returning to the issue, I shall put on record a question and answer in my notes which she and her advisers can consider before deciding how to proceed. The question is as follows. Why does the Bill not allow for the local development document to be treated as being in general conformity with a submitted regional spatial strategy revision or an altered or modified spatial development strategy as the Greater London Authority Act provides for in relation to a spatial development strategy at present? I understand that that is known as the "permitted assumption".
	We did give that serious consideration. I appreciate the concern raised about what happens when two levels of planning are out of sequence. However, to give undue weight to a submitted regional spatial strategy revision before it had been subject to examination could prejudge that examination. It could also call into question the role of the examination in checking the soundness of the draft revision, including whether it had been prepared on a sufficiently inclusive basis and subject to adequate participation.
	As the noble Baroness says that she wants to return to the issue when we reach Clause 37, I hope that those comments are helpful when they are read in conjunction with my comments on the other amendments.

Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for his reply, and I apologise—I think I have caused a lot of confusion in my own mind as well as his. As a result I shall not move the other amendments to Clause 23. I think that we will be able later to refer to both aspects. Clause 23(1)(b) is linked to Clause 37(2). I will deal later with Clause 37(2), and we can try then to untangle this spider's web. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 106ZD to 106ZR not moved.]

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 106A:
	Page 14, line 20, leave out subsection (8).

Baroness Hamwee: Amendment No. 106A, which is grouped with Amendment No. 106B, would leave out subsection (8) of Clause 23, which covers ground that we may have already touched. Leaving out subsection (8) would remove the Secretary of State's power of intervention in relation to the conformity of local development documents with their regional spatial strategies. I did not write the following words. They come from the Law Society:
	"That power is both superfluous and will only serve to undermine the co-operative relationship between regional planning bodies and local planning authorities".
	That puts a slightly different cast on the issues that my noble friends have dealt with. It directs that it is not necessary for the document to be in general conformity, which I assume is what is meant by subsection (8), because the provisions that it has to be in conformity can be ignored. This is in danger of giving all of us migraines. Is it something to do with the independent examination? Is it in the Government's mind that the inspectors should give appropriate weight to those different criteria? I hope that the Minister's speaking note will help us.
	Amendment No. 106B would leave out subsection (9), which provides that if there is not a regional planning body, its functions must be exercised by the Secretary of State. That takes us back to the fifth minute of the debate on the first amendment on day one. I would almost say "QED", but I look forward to the Minister's defence of the devolution that is contained in the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: I think that I can give the noble Baroness a satisfactory answer on the two amendments. Amendment No. 106A would remove the Secretary of State's power to direct that the opinion of the regional planning body on the general conformity of local development documents be ignored. Amendment No. 106B would remove the duty of the Secretary of State to give an opinion on general conformity if there is no recognised planning body.
	I hope that there will not be a case where a regional planning body acts irresponsibly in its consideration of general conformity. But there could be cases where it tries to tie down the local planning authority to too great a detail of conformity, perhaps to the letter of some out-of-date policy which has not yet been amended by revision of the regional spatial strategy.
	In such instances, Clause 23 allows the Secretary of State to override the opinion of the regional planning body, or to exercise the function of determining general conformity where there is no recognised regional planning body. That provides an important safeguard for local planning authorities in the preparation of a local development document. We fervently hope that it will not happen, but suppose there is a regional planning body which excluded its non-elected members and thereby lost recognition from the Secretary of State. If there was not that provision, there would be a vacuum and the local planning authority would be left in doubt over whether its development planning document was in general conformity.
	That is the only example I have. I realise that I am now a hostage to fortune, having said that. The minute I said that I knew, because questions were asked about regional planning bodies and "non-elected" members. They are so called because they are elected not to local authorities but to other bodies. So they are legitimate but not the same as local government people. I have to say that the example I have given is not a good one, because it is raising issues with which I have been uncomfortable this afternoon.
	So, just in case a regional planning body for some reason lost its recognition, we would need such powers to support the local planning authority. I hope that helps to explain such matters, which we will return to at another time.

Lord Avebury: The Minister gave the example that the Secretary of State thinks that the RPB has said, perhaps unnecessarily, that the document is not in conformity with the RSS, because it has been looking at an out-of-date document. Would it not be simpler to have a procedure whereby the Secretary of State could just refer the matter back to the RPB, instead of saying that he could ignore what it says? If one wants the RPB to have a useful function, the Secretary of State should not be able to cross out its decisions.

Lord Rooker: Yes, but one of my opening sentences was:
	"I hope there will not be a case where the regional planning body acts irresponsibly in consideration of general conformity".
	"Acting irresponsibly" would probably only apply if the matter had been referred back and the body refused to change, listen to or take account of the issue. In other words, it is a long stop. It is not the first port of call in trying to deal with the problem. I am sure that that is the case. If it is not, I shall certainly come back to the House at another stage and make the matter clear. It is a long stop. It is not the first thing that would happen. Naturally, if there is an issue, referring it back—asking the body to look at the matter again—ought to be the sensible thing to do. It is only if they act irresponsibly and refuse to take notice that there is a problem that we would use the powers. However, I am happy to have a look at the matter—it seems a sensible way to proceed.

Baroness Hamwee: I had not thought about a body becoming unrecognised or undesignated. How bad does it have to be? Clause 23(3)(a) is ignored in that situation. That says that the regional planning body has to send its opinion to the Secretary of State. But what happens to Clause 23(3)(b), under which the regional planning body sends its views to the local planning authority? Perhaps those are the last vestiges of some function left with the regional planning body in its relationship with the local planning authority, because the Secretary of State would rather not have that dialogue. I am sure that I am missing something, because the argument is hard to follow. It is not immediately obvious why the whole of Clause 23(3) is not ignored in the situation that the Minister has described. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, said that we are to return the whole clause at a later date. I am hesitating in case the Minister wishes to comment.

Lord Rooker: I have probably made the dangerous mistake of reading the Bill. Clause 23(3), as I understand it, is effectively a time-limit mechanism. It says:
	"Not later than the end of the period prescribed for the purposes of this section the RPB must send its opinion to",
	those two bodies. So there will be a period prescribed for the purposes; that is, body regulation—so subsection (3) imposes a time factor. It is a time limit in which the RPB has to do something.

Baroness Hamwee: My query was that Clause 23(3) is to be ignored if there is no recognised regional planning body. That relates not to the whole of Clause 23(3), but to only a part of it. That was what was confusing me. I think that hot towels need to be prescribed for the next round. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 106AA and 106B not moved.]
	Clause 23 agreed to.
	Clause 24 [Revocation of local development document]:
	[Amendment No. 107 not moved.]

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 107A:
	Page 14, line 27, after "the" insert "reasonable"

Baroness Hanham: In moving Amendment No. 107A, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 108BA, 108ZZA and 108ZB. The amendments are designed to firm up the woolly language of Clauses 24 and 26. Amendments Nos. 107A and 108ZZA refer to Clause 24 on revocation of local development documents. Amendment No. 107A adds a reasonableness test to a request by a local authority to the Secretary of State to revoke a local development document. That provides for an objective test so that a local planning authority cannot arbitrarily or without good reason request the revocation of a local development document.
	Amendment No. 108ZZA is a drafting amendment which simply replaces "document" in line 29 with "documents". With that amendment, Clause 24(b) would state that the Secretary of State,
	"may prescribe descriptions of local development documents which may be revoked by the authority themselves".
	That makes grammatical sense and tallies with Clause 16, which is entitled, "Local development documents".
	Amendments Nos. 108ZB and 108BA refer to Clause 26 on the Secretary of State's default power. Amendment No. 108ZB ensures that before the Secretary of State holds an independent examination, he must think that a local planning authority is significantly failing or omitting to do anything necessary for it to do. That would act as a bulwark against unnecessary Secretary of State interference—something that we have all been trying to prevent all evening—if there were only a minor failure or omission on the part of the local planning authority.
	Amendment No. 108BA adds another reasonableness test. This time, a local authority would have to reimburse the Secretary of State only for any reasonable expenditure that he incurs under the clause. It would seem sensible to have that safety net added in the Bill, not only to put a limit on the amount that a local authority will be liable to pay to the Secretary of State, but so that the Secretary of State is aware of the need to keep a cap on the costs generated in that way. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: The noble Baroness talked about making the Bill more grammatical, but I am not so sure that the central purpose of the Bill is to be grammatical. I know that that will count as an attack on parliamentary counsel, but it is not. Bills should be clear and understandable.
	It is a glib cliche that Ministers trot out, and I always resented it when I heard it in the past, but it is true that all authorities are under a duty to act reasonably. That is a legal duty, and there is no need to specify it in the Bill. Amendment No. 108ZB would restrict the Secretary of State's power to prepare or revise a development plan document to cases when he thought that a local planning authority was significantly failing or omitting to do something that it needed to do in connection with preparing, revising or adopting a development plan document.
	The advice that I have is that, in view of the duty to act reasonably, it is quite unnecessary to qualify the reference in Clause 26 with "significantly". The Secretary of State would not prepare a development plan document himself because the local planning authority had failed in some insignificant way.
	Amendment No. 108ZZA would alter the Secretary of State's power to prescribe descriptions of local development document which may be revoked by the authority itself to apply to documents. The amendment is unnecessary, as in legislation the singular includes the plural. I never knew that before, although I knew about gender—that "he" means "she", which is very difficult to explain to people outside.
	Amendment No. 108BA would require Clause 26(5) to state expressly that any expenditure that the local planning authority must reimburse to the Secretary of State was to be "reasonable". That is in respect of the Secretary of State exercising his default power. Where the local planning authority fails in its duties to prepare, revise or adopt a development plan document, it is essential that the Secretary of State should have a power to step in and carry out those functions. Where he exercises that power, it is only reasonable that he should be able to charge the local planning authority for the work that he has to do. There is nothing new in that principle. Therefore there is no need for Amendment No. 108BA. The Secretary of State must always act reasonably.
	The amendments are therefore unnecessary, and I hope that they will be withdrawn.

Baroness Hanham: We learn something every day. Plural for singular and singular for plural—so long as that is in legislation, it is fine. I am sorry that we cannot make the reference to "documents", which would make more sense, but there we are.
	It will not have escaped the Minister's notice that we are all struggling to get the Secretary of State out of the whole equation. I thought that I would state that plainly. Every time one sees the Secretary of State doing something, we are all going to try to get rid of it one way or another. On the whole question of reasonableness, I am sure that a number of my colleagues have stood at the Front Bench with amendments to take "reasonable" out, so I have to be careful.

Lord Rooker: This is a point that I should not make, because I am only causing trouble for myself. I simply invite the noble Baroness and all her researchers to have a look at how many times my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister—the Secretary of State referred to in the Bill, but not by name—has been taken to court and found to act unreasonably. Then she should compare that with the record of the present Leader of the Opposition.

Baroness Hanham: I am sure that it is extremely important that a Secretary of State act reasonably under all circumstances.
	The whole point of the clause concerns the Secretary of State's intervention when a local authority is refusing to make or has not made a development plan, which I guess is probably quite unusual. That has to be carried out only if there is a significant failure to act, which would presumably be only after an enormous amount of effort to get an authority to do so. "Significant" is a word that I would quite like to see in the Bill, but I hear the Minister's response. I will think about it further but, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 108 to 108ZZB not moved.]
	Clause 24 agreed to.
	Clause 25 [Revision of local development documents]:
	[Amendment No. 108ZA not moved.]
	Clause 25 agreed to.
	Clause 26 [Secretary of State's default power]:
	[Amendment No. 108ZB not moved.]

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 108A:
	Page 15, line 21, leave out subsection (4).

Baroness Hamwee: The amendment was grouped with Amendment No. 102H, which I did not move. Given that this is another filleting amendment, I feel that I would not have done the job if I did not at least move Amendment No. 108A and also speak to Amendment No. 108B, which are a further provision in the Secretary of State's default power set out in Clause 26. I apologise, because I hoped that it would not cause mayhem if I did not move Amendment No. 102H. I was rightly stopped, because I was not moving it. I should have sent a note around.
	Amendment No. 108A allows the Secretary of State to prepare or revise a development plan document, or in a generous mood, approve a development plan document. I assume that that is the document that is referred to in Clause 26(4)(a), because it is the document that is referred to in Clause 26(1). Clause 26(4)(a) does not say that all of this is dependent on the Secretary of State taking the view that a local planning authority is not doing what is necessary. The Minister will say that that must be the case, because it would be daft for the Secretary of State to intervene if that were not so.
	I am sure that we will come back to this area, but I would at least like an assurance that the powers given to the Secretary of State in Clause 26(4)(a) are dependent on him taking a view that the local planning authority is failing or omitting within Clause 26(1). If it is not dependent on that, the Secretary of State could take the view that he does not like what the local planning authority is doing, that he does not agree with their approach or policies, and that for reasons that he does not have to justify, he does not want to support them.
	Unless the clause is read as a whole, it does not say—I am sorry, it does say the section applies if he thinks that—perhaps I am going wrong in this. The Minister will tell me off. It is another power given to the Secretary of State, in circumstances that we are all making entirely clear that we are not comfortable with.
	There is a financial penalty attached. That is distasteful, and slightly odd in a local government finance regime, where most of the money comes from the Secretary of State in the first place. If he thinks that the local authority is not doing the job properly, it may well say that it cannot afford to employ enough planning officers. It must reimburse him in connection with what he does in preparing or revising the document. There are references to reimbursement, or payment between authorities, elsewhere in the Bill. For a local planning authority to have to dig into its little coffers to pay the Secretary of State, who has rather more at his disposal, seems odd in the least.
	I apologise for that rather confused introduction of these two amendments. I did not even have any notes, because when I put these amendments down it was so obvious to me that these were appalling provisions that should be taken out. I thought that the justification would come to me the moment that I stood up. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: The two amendments that the noble Baroness has spoken to, Amendments Nos. 108A and 108B, would remove Clauses 26(4) and 26(5). These are the Secretary of State's powers to prepare or revise a development plan document and to charge the local planning authority for the work. The devolved power in Clause 26 is similar to the power under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. It is hoped that the Secretary of State will not have to use it. The Secretary of State has not acted in place of a local planning authority in this way in recent years.
	Where the local planning authority fails in its duties to prepare, revise or adopt a development plan document, it is essential that the Secretary of State should have a power to step in and carry out these functions. When he exercises this power, it is only reasonable that he should be able to charge the local planning authority for the work that he must do. There is nothing new in this principle, and I cannot for the life of me see why it is being objected to. If the local authority has refused to do the work, it still must be done and paid for. Otherwise, it would be a way for local government to offload its financial duties back to central government.
	The development planning document will form part of the development plan under Clause 37. Development must take place in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Without the safeguard of the Secretary of State being able to prepare, revise and approve the development plan document, a local authority might be left without an up to date development plan. This causes uncertainty for everyone, communities and developers alike. We do not expect that the Secretary of State will need to use these powers very often, if at all. They are most likely to apply where an authority does not, and has no plans to, prepare or revise a development plan document, even though the authority's existing policies are significantly out of date.
	I have no examples, because I cannot conceive of authorities acting so irresponsibly. They are default powers, similar to those in the principal Act, namely the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. They are not new, they are not a precedent, and, with respect, it is wholly reasonable that if the work has to be done by the Secretary of State, it must be paid for.

Baroness Hamwee: My concern is more fundamental than the knock-on effect of payment. There are other places in the Bill where, "if such and such, then such and such" and we do not have the interposition of either the local planning authority or the Secretary of State thinking that they are "such and such". Obviously, he must take a view as to whether the local planning authority fails or omits to do anything. He must be reasonable in that. However, this default power is dependent on his judgment. I remain uncomfortable at the prospect of a local planning authority having to seek judicial review of that decision. That is what this would boil down to, if it did not want him to intervene.

Lord Rooker: The noble Baroness said that if after a local government annual settlement, when local authorities have had their due amount of money under the revenue support arrangements to carry out the functions that they are supposed to carry out, and they refuse for some reason to carry out a function that must be done, the Secretary of State must make sure that that is carried out but that he is not entitled to charge for it. Surely she does not mean that. The local authorities have been paid to do it. They will have their grant money to carry out their functions; therefore, I cannot see what is so unreasonable about a default power in the most extreme circumstances, if that must be done. Someone must pay for it. In effect, the local authority has already paid for it through its revenue support settlement.

Baroness Hamwee: We all know full well that the Secretary of State would just withhold it the following year. We have all been there, have we not? We will return to the issue of the Secretary of State's powers. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 108B and 108BA not moved.]
	Clause 26 agreed to.
	Clause 27 [Joint local development documents]:

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 108C:
	Page 16, line 4, leave out subsections (6) to (9).

Baroness Hamwee: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 108D, which is grouped with Amendment No. 108C. Amendment No. 108C would leave out subsections (6) to (9) of Clause 27, and Amendment No. 108D would leave out subsection (11).
	My point is not unrelated to the previous few exchanges. Clause 27 relates to local planning authorities coming together to prepare joint documents. That may be a fine thing, but I am not challenging that, as it is not the issue. If local authorities are given the power to agree to prepare joint documents, is it necessary to spell out in legislation what will happen if the agreement falls to bits? Subsections (7) to (9) apply if a local planning authority withdraws from an agreement. Is it not up to the parties to any agreement to work out what to do in a series of circumstances?
	Does the Secretary of State so fear that local planning authorities will get into a mess that he must prescribe for such a situation in the Bill and make regulations on a corresponding joint local development—another great phrase that is ripe for acronymisation? We have been told often enough that we should not include more than is reasonable on the face of the Bill. My point relates to local authority autonomy. If they are big enough and capable enough to agree to write joint plans, I suggest that they can reach an appropriate agreement without help. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: Clause 27 enables two or more local planning authorities to agree to prepare one or more joint development documents. Sometimes agreements about joint working will break down. I realise that joint working between local authorities happens at present. I do not know what happens in planning, but in my first couple of years as Food Safety Minister I was gratified by the enormous amount of co-operation and joint working in environmental health and protection, of which, as a big-city boy, I had not been aware. It worked extremely well in many parts of the country.
	However, sometimes joint agreements break down. Amendments Nos. 108C and 108D would remove the provisions that cater for that. The clause provides that, if that happens while the joint document is being prepared, any steps taken in preparation of the joint document can count as steps taken towards the preparation of a corresponding document prepared by an authority or authorities party to the joint agreement. Regulations will define a corresponding document as one that does not relate to the area of an authority that has withdrawn from the agreement, and that has substantially the same effect on the areas of the authorities remaining in the agreement as the original document. That seems sensible; otherwise authorities would be throwing away all the work that had been done.
	Amendment No. 108D removes the Secretary of State's power to make regulations in which a corresponding document is defined. The clause requires any independent examination into a joint document, under way when a joint agreement breaks down, to be suspended. However, the clause, together with the draft regulations, provides that an authority that was party to the joint agreement can, within three months of its suspension, ask the Secretary of State to direct that the examination be resumed in relation to a corresponding document. It is important to ensure that work undertaken on a joint document is not wasted unnecessarily if an agreement breaks down. If work had been done between two authorities and then one pulled out for various reasons, it would be ludicrous if the other authority could not proceed on the positive basis of work that had already being done. That would be a waste of expertise, local government resources and public money.
	The amendments would prevent a reasonable course of action. Therefore, they are not acceptable. I hope that they will not be pursued.

Baroness Hamwee: I think that I can accept that argument in respect of subsection (9). But my main point remains: if planning authorities come together to work as the Minister described, they ought to be trusted to make arrangements for getting out of their agreement. After all, that is always a consideration before entering an agreement. However, having made the point, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Rooker: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In doing so, I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.30 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Common Electoral Principles) Order 2004

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 11 December 2003 be approved [3rd Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, this order specifies that a decision of the Council of the European Union is to be regarded as a treaty for the purposes of the European Communities Act 1972. The decision in question is that of 25 June and 23 September 2002, which makes changes to an earlier 1976 Act of the European Parliament concerning the election of the representatives of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage.
	I should explain at the outset that the 1976 Act, to which I shall refer throughout, is not an Act of the UK Parliament. It was an Act proposed by the European Parliament, made by the Council of the European Communities, now termed the Council of the European Union. The Council is the European Union's legislative body. The 1976 Act laid down a number of principles to be followed by member states in elections to the European Parliament. Those principles were adopted into UK law and first applied to the European parliamentary elections in 1979. That was the first occasion that representatives were elected to the European Parliament, and they have since been in force in all subsequent European elections.
	The reason for this order is that the Government need to adopt the 2002 Council decision into UK law as the 1976 Act was previously. The changes to the 1976 Act, which the decision makes, were developed from proposals originating in the European Parliament in 1998, which were taken up by the Council of the European Union. The decision updates and revises the 1976 Act to take account of developments since 1976. It needs the unanimous agreement of member states of the Council. This was obtained after long discussion in which the UK was, of course, heavily involved.
	The Department for Constitutional Affairs has submitted a note to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments to explain why, for the purposes of adoption of the Council decision, the Government are regarding the decision as a treaty. Once this order is approved and made, the Government will be able to sign an instrument of adoption, which will complete our adoption procedures. We will also make regulations under Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972, to ensure that references in domestic law are up to date.
	I will comment on the substantive provisions of the decision. The decision aims to ensure that Members of the European Parliament are elected in accordance with certain principles common to all member states, while leaving member states free to apply their national provisions in respect of aspects not covered by the decision. We believe that this is a sensible and balanced approach, and I hope that noble Lords will agree with us.
	The decision is made up of four articles.
	Article 1 of the decision forms the major part of the decision. It contains a number of amendments to the provisions of the 1976 Act about elections to the European Parliament. Most of these changes are minor, already in force in the UK or do not apply, and I do not propose to go into those. But there is a substantive change that I should mention.
	The decision deals with persons who hold office both as an MEP and a as member of a national parliament, commonly referred to as "dual mandates". For noble Lords who want to follow this, it is Article 6 of the 1976 Act, and is dealt with in paragraph 7 of Article 1 of the decision. This states that:
	"From the European Parliament elections in 2004, the office of Member of the European Parliament shall be incompatible with that of a member of a national parliament".
	"National parliament" refers to the Westminster parliament, and therefore provisions do not apply to the devolved legislatures of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
	I commend this measure to the House. Members of the Westminster Parliament and Members of the European Parliament should have clear mandates, and they should be able to concentrate on doing their jobs without dividing themselves between two bodies. The majority of European colleagues regard the job of MEP as a full-time post, and the Government agree. The provision preventing dual mandates is therefore a welcome, positive step.
	However, in their discussions on the decision, the Government were aware that there are currently two Members of the other House, the honourable Members for Foyle and North Antrim, and three Members of this House, the noble Baronesses, Lady Ludford and Lady Nicholson and the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, who are also Members of the European Parliament. We therefore considered that it was fair and reasonable for this change to be phased in for these honourable Members and noble Lords.
	The United Kingdom Government therefore negotiated a derogation from the dual mandates provision. Under this derogation, Members of the United Kingdom Parliament who were also Members of the European Parliament during the five year term preceding election to the European Parliament in 2004 may have a dual mandate until the 2009 parliament elections.
	There are some minor changes that I should mention. The decision deals with other offices, in addition to representatives of a national parliament, that are incompatible with the office of MEP. These offices now include members of the board of directors of the European Central Bank, and the Ombudsman of the European Community.
	In European elections, states are now able to count the votes at any time before the close of polling in the member state whose electors are the last to vote. For the UK, where voting takes place on Thursday, this means that we will be able to count votes before the last polling stations close in the European Union on Sunday evening. However, the results must be kept secret until after that time. This greater flexibility and timing in the counting of votes will be reflected in regulations that we are preparing for the UK European elections.
	The decision also provides for Members of the European Parliament to be elected on the basis of proportional representation. This requires no change in our procedures. Since the last European parliamentary elections in 1999, UK MEPs are elected by proportional representation. States may establish constituencies for elections to the European Parliament. The UK is divided up into 12 electoral regions for the European elections.
	The decision allows, but does not compel, states, first, to set a minimum threshold to the allocation of seats, and, secondly, to set a limit on candidates' campaign expenses.
	Your Lordships will wish to note that, unlike the practice of some other European states, we have no plans to specify a minimum threshold for votes in the allocation of seats in the UK. Individual candidates and political parties are already limited in their level of campaign expenses. The decision re-states that MEPs are elected for a five-year term. It is still the case that no-one may vote more than once in any election to the European Parliament.
	The decision addresses procedures for filling any vacancies that might arise during the five-year term of the European Parliament. Each member state must have procedures for filling any seat that falls vacant during the five year term of Parliament. Such procedures are already in place in the UK.
	Article 2 of the Council decision simply re-numbers the provisions of the 1976 Act, as amended by the decision. Annexed to the decision is a table showing the new numbering of the articles in the Act, which is designed to improve the Act's readability.
	Article 3 governs the coming into force of the decision's provisions.
	Article 4 explains that the decision shall be published in the official journal of the European Community, which duly occurred.
	This order will enable the Government to complete our adoption procedures in respect of the Council decision. This order ensures that we are fulfilling our obligations in respect of elections to the European Parliament, and I commend it your Lordships.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 11 December be approved [3rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Evans of Temple Guiting.)

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his very detailed explanation of this order.
	With regard to the issue of dual mandates, the order will, as the Minister, said, result in those members of the national parliament—namely, Westminster—being unable to be both a member and an MEP.
	However, the electorate will not understand why someone can be a Member of the Scottish Parliament or an Assembly Member as well as a Member of the European Parliament. Are the Government suggesting that they have more spare time than those based here? Surely it is as difficult for a person from those bodies to be an effective MEP as it is for Members of the Westminster Parliament.
	With regard to the forthcoming elections in June, the Minister mentioned that the Government will be producing regulations. Can he assure the House that the regulations will come before a committee of both Houses for scrutiny?
	On the electoral system being adopted, Members on these Benches would prefer to return to a constituency link and first past the post. One reason for the low turnouts in European elections is the lack of links with MEPs and the European Parliament. Will Her Majesty's Government conduct an investigation and report on the process post the June election? If the turnout worsens, will the Government consider changing the system back to first past the post to encourage the electorate to take their democratic right seriously?
	Although we are sceptical about a number of areas, we shall not oppose this order. I look forward to the Minister's response to the issues I have raised.

Lord Rennard: My Lords, I too thank the Minister for his full and careful explanation of the order. Overall I have to say that it is welcome to see these common principles in relation to how member states elect their representatives to the European Parliament. Many noble Lords on these Benches thought it disgraceful that Britain was able to get away with ignoring the principles for so long, making our representation at the European Parliament so unrepresentative of British voters for so many years.
	I want to ask the Minister about a couple of areas in the order where there is concern. He has already referred to the particular issue affecting Members of this House. The common principles fail to recognise the current and very special position of Members of the House of Lords. It is acceptable to set out in a principle that there should be no dual mandate, that one should not be able to sit in the European Parliament and a state legislature at the same time, but that makes the assumption that people have a choice about where their priorities lie. That is a false assumption for Members of this House who currently have no provision for resignation. That is probably unique among the legislatures of the 25 member states that will shortly comprise the European Union.
	While the Minister said that there is a temporary derogation for the United Kingdom in relation to the situation until 2009, should there not be a permanent derogation for the House of Lords in particular, one that would recognise the difficulty facing Members of this House who at present cannot resign from it? Or will the Government make it clear that whatever may happen in future reforms of this House, they will themselves instigate or fully support a measure that would release Members here from a lifetime commitment, preferably by allowing replacements to whatever part of the House they come from if they choose to exercise that option? That is an important principle; we should allow the common principles for the European Parliament to be changed in this way.
	It does seem to me that it is potentially a fundamental breach of the rights of those three Members of this House also serving as MEPs, or any other Member who in the future may wish to stand for the European Parliament, if they are not able to do so.
	Will the Minister respond to this point and clarify the position in relation to the counting of the votes in these elections? I understand that the order will provide for the counting of votes to begin before the last votes have been cast in countries voting at a later point. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Mr Christopher Leslie, indicated in another place that the returning officers will be able to count the votes in secret without announcing results either publicly or to candidates.
	Is that not unprecedented in our system and quite wrong not to allow the traditional supervision over the counting of votes? For example, how would a party and a group of candidates know whether a recount would be necessary if they had not witnessed the original count and the degree of care taken to see whether the totals are correct? Those of us who, over the years, have witnessed a number of recounts at local council or parliamentary elections know that sometimes the totals can vary considerably between the original count and recounts. We have seen different degrees of accuracy once the votes have been counted. It is important, therefore, to provide for adequate supervision by candidates and their representatives to see that the count is conducted properly. However, providing for that would create a problem over maintaining the secrecy of the ballot.
	Counting votes in secret has been something we have expected of fraudulent dictators when they try to rig the system and prevent people from seeing what is going on rather than what is done in a democracy. Perhaps the Minister could address in a little more detail the process by which it may be possible to examine the counting of the votes while maintaining the principle of secrecy before other votes in the Union are cast and counted.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Astor of Hever and Lord Rennard, for their contribution to this short debate. I shall deal first with the questions put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Astor.
	On dual mandates, I am sure that most would agree that, as a basic principle, a member of a national parliament should not be an MEP as well. The two jobs have such weight that I argue that one person cannot do justice to both at the same time. But I do not think that anyone would argue that someone could not be an MEP and, say, a parish councillor. The question is: where should the line be drawn?

Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, would the noble Lord be good enough to give way to take a question on that point? I see the argument that in practice it is very difficult to be both a member of a national parliament and a Member of the European Parliament, but actually to ban it is to place a fundamental restriction on the freedom of the electors. It is for electors to choose who they want. If they choose someone who happens to be a member of another legislature, that is for them. This strikes me as completely unacceptable in principle because it limits the freedom of electors.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I think some confusion has arisen here. I am not talking about the freedom of electors. I am putting the point on behalf of the Government that it is not possible—this is open for discussion—for someone to be an effective MEP and a member of another legislature. We can discuss whether that is an infringement of the rights of the individual, but I do not think that it is a matter for the electorate.
	The question, I was saying, is where the line should be drawn. We think that the line is correctly drawn at the national parliament level. We are not concerned here with the wide range of representative bodies that exist in member states below their national parliaments. That is why the provision does not apply to the devolved legislatures in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
	The noble Lord also asked about European Parliament regulations. I can confirm that the European parliamentary election regulations are required by statute to be approved only after debates in both Houses of Parliament. We intend to lay these regulations before Parliament very shortly.
	On the question of proportional representation—

Lord Roper: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Before he leaves the question of dual mandate, will he say something about the very special position of Members of this House who, unlike the members of any other legislature across the whole of the European Union, are unable to free themselves from membership of this House to stand for the European Parliament? Can he indicate whether the Government will include a provision which would enable a Member of this House to free themselves from such membership in the legislation intended to reform this House? If it were not included in the legislation, would they accept such an amendment if it were moved?

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Roper, for his intervention. I was about to come to that matter because it was a question put to me by his noble friend Lord Rennard. I shall turn to it in a moment.
	On the question of proportional representation and first past the post, I am aware of the opposition of the noble Lord and his party to the proportional system, but I am not sure that the reason for low turnouts at European elections can be wholly laid at the door of proportional representation. I see the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, nodding in vigorous assent. Although our manifesto committed us to review the operation of the various proportional representation systems in the UK alongside the report prepared by the late Lord Jenkins of Hillhead to see whether a proportional system might be adopted for Westminster, we have not decided on the structure or timing of any review.
	However, it will not come as a surprise to noble Lords if I say that we have no intention of abandoning proportional representation for European elections. We have agreed with our European partners that European elections in all states should be by a proportional system. Indeed, the Council decision gives effect to that agreement.
	The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, asked two questions. First, is it fair for someone to be denied this right of being a member of two legislatures where they cannot resign from the House of Lords? The consultation paper on reform of the House of Lords proposes that Members will be able to resign in the future. We anticipate that, whatever delays there are in implementing House of Lords reform, by 2009 we shall have agreement. I enjoyed his comment—I am sure it was unintentional—about Members of this House being released to be MEPs if they so wish. I can confirm that it is the Government's intention to introduce the ability for Members to join other legislatures.
	On the counting of votes and the anonymity of results, candidates and agents will be able to attend the count, and any recount whenever it is held, as well as any announcement of the result, so it will be like any other election. The counting of votes will be allowed at any time after the close of poll on Thursday night but there will be no announcement of any result until after the close of polls across Europe on Sunday night; and no announcement will be made to candidates or anyone else before that announcement on Sunday evening.
	I hope that that answers all the points made. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Astor and Lord Rennard, for their interesting comments. I commend the order.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Parliamentary Elections (Combined Region and Campaign Expenditure) (United Kingdom and Gibraltar) Order 2004

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 15 January be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I beg to move the draft order. The order has two key purposes that I wish the House to consider. The first is to establish the combined electoral region which will bring the south-west and Gibraltar together so that the people of Gibraltar can vote in European parliamentary elections. The second is as a result of this combination to extend, with amendments as necessary, the provisions of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 so that they apply to Gibraltar in so far as possible in the same way as they apply to the rest of the combined region.
	This order is necessary and desirable to ensure that we fulfil our obligation to enable the people of Gibraltar to vote in the European Parliament elections. This follows the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in 1999 which ruled that the European Parliament formed a part of Gibraltar's legislature. The European Parliament Representation Act 2003 enables the establishment of the combined region. As the average electorate in the electoral region in the UK is 3.7 million and the size of the electorate in Gibraltar is around only 20,000, it was agreed by Parliament that Gibraltar should become part of an existing UK electoral region and as such would be represented by MEPs for that region.
	The Electoral Commission was required by the same Act to consider and recommend to the Lord Chancellor which UK electoral region Gibraltar should be combined with. On 28 August last year, following a wide consultation process in the UK and Gibraltar, the commission announced in a report its recommendation that Gibraltar should be combined with the south-west region. This announcement was welcomed generally. The report making this recommendation has been laid before Parliament. Article 2 of this order specifies the south-west region.
	The European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002 contains the basic provisions for the running of European parliamentary elections in the UK, including defining electoral regions; and Article 3 of this order amends that Act to take into account the inclusion of Gibraltar in the European parliamentary election process.
	In framing the primary legislation to enable Gibraltar to vote at European parliamentary elections, our guiding principle—it is one shared by the Government of Gibraltar, this House and another place—was that as far as possible the main corpus of electoral law that applies to the UK for European parliamentary elections should also apply to Gibraltar. This is being achieved by means of a number of pieces of secondary legislation. First, the European parliamentary elections regulations which are to be laid before Parliament shortly will cover for the United Kingdom and Gibraltar such matters as entitlement to register to vote and the mechanisms of the conduct of the election.
	The Government of Gibraltar, too, will be making a substantive contribution by making an ordinance which will, among other things, provide for the maintenance of the electoral register and the regulation of party political broadcasts in Gibraltar.
	The order which we consider today contributes to this by extending to Gibraltar the provisions of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. That Act provides a regulatory framework for political parties wishing to participate in elections, for the reporting of donations and election campaign expenditure.
	The order does a number of things in relation to the registration of political parties. Article 5 amends the Registration of Political Parties (Prohibited Words and Expressions) Order 2000 so that UK parties are prevented from registering as, for example, the Gibraltar Conservative and Unionist party. However, the order provides for the possibility of a Gibraltar party registering under such a name.
	The order also deals with the question of donations to parties. There may be a concern in the House, rightly, that this would allow additional sources of money not otherwise permitted to flood into UK-based political parties. The order guards against this. The approach we have taken is to limit the amount of money that comes in from particular sources and ensure that it is not more than that which the party could use for European Parliament elections. Political parties based in both the UK and Gibraltar will be able to participate in the elections. An existing UK party which has already registered with the Electoral Commission will not need to register again; but if that UK party wishes to receive donations from a Gibraltar source, it will need to make a statement to the Electoral Commission that it proposes to contest the European Parliament election in the combined region, the south-west. That party will then be able to receive donations from a Gibraltarian source but only during the four month campaign period—in the case of the 2004 elections, from 10 February to 10 June.
	UK parties will be subject to further constraints where the aggregate value of Gibraltarian donations received during the four month period exceeds the campaign expenditure limit for the combined region as set out in the 2000 Act, being about £315,000. The excess donations are to be returned to the donor in the same way as if they were impermissible donations by three months after the date of the poll. This will ensure that any one party cannot receive any more than it can use during the election period and provides a clear limit for donations from Gibraltar linked to expenditure in the combined region for these elections.
	A further restriction is made in that a Gibraltarian will not be able to donate to individual members of United Kingdom political parties for the purpose of their political activities. However, he or she would be able to donate to an MEP for the combined region, regardless of which party they represented. That is a fair provision, given that all the MEPs in the combined region will represent not only the electorate of the south-west, but also the people of Gibraltar.
	The draft order also provides for Gibraltarians to register as recognised third parties to ensure that non-party organisations in Gibraltar have the same opportunities as other non-party organisations in the rest of the combined region to support a particular party's campaign. The amount of campaign expenditure that recognised third parties can spend in Gibraltar will be limited, as suggested by the Electoral Commission, to £16,000. That is 10 per cent of the limit applying to other recognised third parties, which is calculated to allow for campaigning on a national basis.
	The provisions will work effectively within the existing regulatory framework. At the same time, and just as importantly, it will allow the people and parties of Gibraltar to participate fully in the European parliamentary elections.
	Article 6 of the draft order enables Gibraltar lawyers to have rights of audience and to conduct litigation in the England and Wales courts. That provision enables the people of Gibraltar to be represented by a legal representative from Gibraltar itself should proceedings be held in the UK. An amendment made to the 2000 Act by paragraph 7 of the schedule to the order means that the Gibraltar Broadcasting Corporation is included in the lists of broadcasters prohibited from carrying party political broadcasts other than by registered parties where such broadcasts relate to European parliamentary elections. The Government of Gibraltar are making the necessary further regulatory provisions on broadcasting to mirror those in the UK in their forthcoming ordinance.
	Following a recommendation from the Electoral Commission, the order also amends the more general provision relating to European parliamentary elections. The definition of campaign expenditure in paragraph 2 of Schedule 8 to the 2000 Act excludes any expenses in respect of newsletters or similar publications issued by the party, elected representatives or candidates. In other elections, such expenses would be regarded as election expenses incurred by candidates. But for European parliamentary elections, the control of expenditure by parties is by way of a limit on their campaign expenditure rather than election expenses. Without the amendment in Article 7, such expenditure would fall outside the definition of campaign expenditure.
	The House will note that the Electoral Commission has been consulted on the order. The commission gave its overall support to the order and made a few minor and helpful comments that we have incorporated. In addition, and for the record, I should add that the Government consider the order fully compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
	The order ensures that we are fulfilling our obligations following a European Court of Human Rights decision that the people of Gibraltar are entitled to vote in the European parliamentary election, as it forms part of their legislature. The order gives effect to Part 2 of the European Parliament (Representation) Act 2003, creating the combined region and extending certain areas of UK electoral law to Gibraltar. I commend the order to the House.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 15 January be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Evans of Temple Guiting.)

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, again, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the order. I have only a few brief comments on the details, since other related issues were discussed with the previous order. Clause 2 of the order proposes that Gibraltar will join, for electoral purposes, the south-west electoral region of the United Kingdom. While we very much welcome the addition of Gibraltar, could the Minister elaborate on what consultations were held with the people of Gibraltar about the choice of the electoral region? Did the Electoral Commission suggest other constituencies? If so, why were they thought unsuitable?
	The Minister mentioned the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which I understand controls campaign expenditure. Will the Minister comment on what impact that Act is expected to make on the campaign for the first European elections in Gibraltar? I understand that the franchise and entitlement for voters in Gibraltar is similar to existing provisions in the United Kingdom.
	Since these will be the first elections in Gibraltar, can the Minister tell the House what additional steps are to be taken to ensure that no electoral fraud occurs? Finally, linking this order to the other order, what will be the rules on dual mandate if, for example, the Chief Minister of Gibraltar decides to stand as an MEP? I look forward to the Minister's answers to my questions.

Lord Rennard: My Lords, I think that many noble Lords across the House have welcomed the fact that Gibraltarians will be able to exercise their right to vote in the elections to the European Parliament, together with their fellow citizens in the European Union. As the Minister has highlighted, bringing this about is somewhat complicated by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act. Of course, the complexity of that legislation is something that many of us regretted at the time. Now we are seeing some of the problems of trying to bring this about according to that legislation of three years ago.
	There is one technical area on which I should like the Minister to share his thinking with us and perhaps undertake to review should there be a problem in the future; namely, the amount of financial support that may come from Gibraltar sources towards these elections. My understanding is that if the south-west combined region has seven MEPs, £45,000 multiplied by seven—that is, £315,000—would be the limit that Gibraltarian individuals and parties could give over a four-month period prior to the June election. Anything more than that amount would have to be returned. It seems to me that that is a very large amount to say could come from Gibraltar sources, because it amounts to the total permitted expenditure across the whole of the combined south-west region.
	Would it be right to say that Gibraltar sources could pay for 100 per cent of the costs of a party across the whole of the combined region? Might it not be more appropriate to say that a proportion of the costs would be reasonable? If so much money could be given from Gibraltar sources towards these elections, Gibraltarians may not just be getting a vote in these elections, but, with a great deal of financial support, may even be exercising undue influence. Would that be something that, if it is not reviewed now, might be reviewed in future if, when we look back after the elections, we consider that an undue proportion of the money in these elections has come from Gibraltar sources?

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, again I thank the noble Lords, Lord Astor of Hever and Lord Rennard, for their comments which I will attempt to answer.
	The first point made by the noble Lord, Lord Astor, was about consultation and why the south-west region was chosen. As required by the European Parliament (Representation) Act 2003, the Electoral Commission consulted the Governor and Chief Minister of Gibraltar and the leader of each political party in Gibraltar's House of Assembly. In addition to the statutory consultee, the commission consulted widely over a two-month period in both Gibraltar and the UK. It did this through a public consultation paper, a media campaign and a public meeting in Gibraltar. I have in my hands the recommendation concerning the south-west, Gibraltar and the European Parliament. The first two and a half pages are devoted to an extremely detailed analysis of why the south-west was chosen.
	Briefly, the commission made an assessment of several criteria which it believed would ensure that the chosen region would provide effective representation for the people of Gibraltar. Its initial consultation paper suggested that there was a stronger case for combining Gibraltar with either London or the south-west than with any other region in England and Wales. The consultation confirmed a high level of support in Gibraltar and the UK for the south-west. As well as historical and maritime links, many felt that MEPs representing the south-west's diverse communities and interests could be best placed to take on board the distinct concerns of Gibraltar. Consultees were more ambivalent about London in this role.
	The noble Lord, Lord Astor, asked what impact the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act would make on the campaign for the first European parliamentary elections in Gibraltar. As I have explained, the guiding principle behind the application of UK electoral law—including the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000—is that it should apply as far as possible in the same way in Gibraltar as in the rest of the combined region. The Government of Gibraltar are already actively preparing for the elections, and I therefore see no reason why the election in the Gibraltar part of the combined region should be any less successful than in the rest of the region.
	The noble Lord, Lord Astor, is concerned about fraud. This has been a matter of some concern and that is why it was dealt with so thoroughly in my opening speech. I have already made clear that the whole body of electoral law as it applies to European parliamentary elections in the UK, will as far as possible apply to the running of elections in Gibraltar. Therefore there is no reason why it should be necessary to take additional steps to ensure that no electoral fraud occurs in Gibraltar.
	The noble Lord's final question was what the rules on dual mandate will be if the Chief Minister of Gibraltar decides to stand as an MEP. The prohibition on dual mandates applies to members of national parliaments, as I have explained. While it is for the European Parliament to decide what bodies this covers, it is our view that the House of Assembly would not be classified as a national parliament for this purpose.
	The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, was concerned about the amount of financial support from Gibraltar. The people of Gibraltar should be able to participate by giving donations to parties. To limit this amount to less than the limit for the region as a whole would in our opinion be unfair. However, I will take that question back and give the noble Lord a more comprehensive answer later.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 8.14 to 8.30 p.m.]

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill

House again in Committee on Clause 27.
	Clause 27 agreed to.
	Clause 28 [Joint committees]:

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 108DA:
	Page 16, line 27, after "council" insert ", or if an RPB makes a proposal in relation to any part of its region,"

Baroness Hanham: In moving Amendment No. 108DA, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 108DB, 109ZA, 109AA, 109AB and 109AC.
	The amendments refer to Clauses 28 to 30 and the establishment of joint committees. Experience of joint committees on unitary authorities shows that there tends to be—or there can be—the problem of the lowest common denominator; that is, where there is one council that is not prepared to co-operate, the success of the scheme is ruined. That may be the case even though all the others are willing and enthusiastic to participate. Unfortunately, the Bill does nothing to solve that problem.
	The Bill does not give the regional planning body a say in establishing the joint committee, even if there is majority agreement that such a committee would be the best way of developing the sub-regional spatial strategy that the RPB wants. The Bill would allow any such arrangements to be undermined by an individual local authority that did not wish to participate.
	The amendments would allow a joint committee to be established on a proposal from the regional planning body. That would introduce a way of ensuring that the necessary sub-regional spatial strategies were delivered—something that the Bill fails to do. Given the importance of sub-regional strategies, particularly in the larger regions, this is a key series of amendments. I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee: Amendments Nos. 108E, 108F and 109A to 109D in the group are ours, but they make a similar point. Most are consequential on the first amendment.
	Amendment No. 108E arises from the question of whether what is contained in Clause 28(2) to (5) should be left to the local authorities. We have heard the Minister say several times that not everything can go into the Bill. Even if we have differences about what should be in the Bill rather than in regulations, that statement is incontrovertible. However, the provisions are extremely detailed.
	I made the point on an amendment just before the break that, if local planning authorities were to come together to agree how to deal with such issues, they should be able to agree the procedures that follow from them and implement their agreement. I was puzzled by how much of the Bill was taken up by that sort of prescriptive detail, even if it is intended benignly to be helpful.
	The other amendments are consequential, save for Amendment No. 109D, which would leave out Clause 30(7). Although that is not a consequential amendment, the point is that all of it ought to be a matter for the authorities concerned.

Lord Rooker: This is an important group of amendments, touching on the matters that we debated before the break in respect of joint committees. In this case, Clauses 28 to 30 deal with joint committees of county councils and district councils.
	Amendments Nos. 108DA, 108DB, 109ZA, 109AA, 109AB and 109AC propose a role for regional planning bodies in relation to whether a joint committee should be established, the area and matters that it should cover, both from the start and if expanding its remit, and its dissolution. We are absolutely certain that regional planning bodies will have views on those issues. A regional planning body will be able to suggest to county and district councils that working as a joint committee under Clause 28 would be valuable. It would be free to suggest what area and matters such a committee might cover and that a joint committee, once set up, should be dissolved.
	We would expect county and district councils to take very seriously any suggestions made by a regional planning body. We therefore do not believe that the Bill needs expressly to provide for the regional planning body to make proposals about those issues. It can do, and there is nothing to stop it from doing so. If the idea is that a proposal from a regional planning body should be mandatory, of course, we cannot agree to that. A joint committee would require close working relationships. That can only be based on a voluntary agreement and co-operation now in local government. If there is goodwill for a joint committee, that is fine, but forcing a joint committee between two authorities will not work. It may seem as though the regional planning board would be like the third party holding the ring, but we do not think that it is likely to speed up the process and lead to effective plan making.
	Amendment No. 108E removes the provisions for the Secretary of State to constitute such a committee and apply appropriate legislation to it by order. The other amendments are consequential. The joint committees need to be constituted by order because county councils do not have the functions under Part 2 of the Bill that these committees will exercise. That is the reality of the matter. Such orders may apply to these joint committees legislation that applies to local authorities. That is obviously necessary because they are constituted by order rather than formed under Section 102 of the Local Government Act. They may otherwise not be bound by important local government legislation—for example, not to be covered by the local government ombudsman. Such orders may also make provision for any matters that the Secretary of State thinks are necessary to facilitate the workings of a joint committee; matters such as expenses and disqualification from membership of joint committees are bound to be dealt with. The Secretary of State's order-making role is only an enabling mechanism. Without it, joint county and district committees could not prepare local development documents. He will make or revoke such orders only at the request of the county and district councils concerned.
	Amendment No. 109D would remove the Secretary of State's power to make regulations defining a corresponding document. I dealt with that matter in a previous group of amendments. That power is an important element of the provision to ensure that if a joint committee breaks down, it does not necessarily mean that the work has to be started again from scratch. It is important that authorities can carry on with documents that the joint committee was preparing without again having to go through all the steps taken previously. But this should be possible only when the remaining or individual authorities can own the documents. By a new definition, Clause 30 refers to such documents as corresponding documents.
	Draft regulations provide that to qualify as a corresponding document, the policies and proposals contained in it must not relate to the authority that withdraws from the joint committee—a matter of common sense, but it needs to be stated—and that they must have substantially the same effect on the areas of the remaining or individual authorities as the original document. One would not want to waste the work. On the other hand, however, one would not want the documents to contain proposals on which work had not been done. Policies and proposals which can still work can be taken forward, but where the situation has substantially changed the previous work will not be relevant and the authority will have to begin again.
	A fair point is whether a joint committee should be able unilaterally to extend its remit. I cannot be certain whether that question has been alluded to. This would be a practical solution to the situation where the constituent authorities to a joint committee agree that the committee arrangement works well and want to expand the remit of the committee to prepare other local development documents. We see no reason why they should be required to seek a new order from the Secretary of State to allow that. So there is a degree of flexibility. Obviously, if they are working well together they are hardly likely to need the Secretary of State's involvement.
	I hope that I have given a fair explanation of the purposes of this part of the Bill and that the amendments will be withdrawn.

Baroness Hanham: It is clear that you cannot force together two unwilling partners. On the other hand, sometimes deals and negotiations are helpful. The amendment seeks to give the regional planning body a role in saying that there should be a joint committee; presumably people would listen to it. There was no intention of giving it a mandatory role; you could not possibly do that. I hear what the Minister says, that the regional planning body would be able to do so in any event. I shall read what he said in Hansard. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 108DB to 109 not moved.]
	Clause 28 agreed to.
	Clause 29 [Joint committees: additional functions]:
	[Amendments Nos. 109ZA to 109AB not moved.]
	Clause 29 agreed to.
	Clause 30 [Dissolution of joint committee]:
	[Amendments Nos. 109AC to 109D not moved.]
	Clause 30 agreed to.
	Clause 31 agreed to.
	Clause 32 [Urban development corporations]:
	[Amendment No. 109DA not moved.]
	Clause 32 agreed to.
	Clause 33 agreed to.
	Clause 34 [Annual monitoring report]:

Baroness Hanham: had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 109DB:
	Page 19, line 14, at end insert—
	"(c) the costs incurred by the local planning authority in complying with Part 2 of this Act."

Baroness Hanham: Amendment No. 109DB seeks to remove from the list of areas that the Secretary of State may, by regulations, make provisions for monitoring the exercise by local planning authorities of their functions under Part 2. This will have the effect of cutting back the powers of the Secretary of State to constantly oversee all the work done by local planning authorities rather than creating a system whereby the Secretary of State is constantly monitoring powers.
	I am sorry. If the Committee will forgive me, I shall not move the amendment. It makes no sense whatever.

[Amendment No. 109DB not moved.]
	Clause 34 agreed to.
	Clause 35 [Regulations]:
	[Amendments Nos. 109E, 109F and 109G not moved.]
	Clause 35 agreed to.
	Clause 36 [Interpretation]:
	[Amendment No. 109H not moved.]
	Clause 36 agreed to.
	Clause 37 [Development plan]:

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 109J:
	Page 20, line 28, at end insert—
	"( ) For the purposes of any area in Greater London, the development plan prior to the publication by the Mayor of London of alterations of the spatial development strategy or a new spatial development strategy in accordance with section 341 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (c. 29) (alteration or replacement) is the unitary development plan adopted in accordance with the principal Act."

Baroness Hamwee: In moving this amendment, I will speak also to Amendment No. 110A, which is grouped with Amendments Nos. 110, 110B, 111 and 111ZA. My reason for moving this amendment is more than just that it would be unpopular to bring the Committee back, not move a series of amendments and then go home.
	Clause 37 deals with the development plan. It is an important provision. The amendments relate to London in particular. I have declared an interest in this connection already, but I have not previously declared that I am co-president, with the noble Lords, Lord Graham of Edmonton and Lord Jenkin of Roding, of the Association of London Government—the London boroughs' association.
	The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, asked me earlier today to pass on his apologies for missing this debate. The amendment in his name, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, will no doubt speak, would remove Clause 37(2) because of concerns that I suspect are the same as ours—we are simply approaching the matter differently—about the implications of introducing the provisions when the spatial development strategy is at its current stage. Removing subsection (2) would create a vacuum, so my drafting—which is rather cottage industry and homemade—proposes that the development plan, before alterations to the spatial development strategy have been made or a replacement published, is the unitary development plan adopted under the 1990 Act. Amendment No. 110A would have a similar effect.
	I do not believe that this is in any way a party-political issue, but many London boroughs are concerned about the implications of introducing this provision at a relatively early date. I have not detected that they are opposed to the spatial development strategy becoming the development plan as the longer-term objective. However, there is concern about changing the status of what is not yet a finalised plan—although we had all hoped to see it in its final form by now—which would involve changing matters part way through its development process. For the purposes of this debate, I shall refer to it as the present draft. Although that may not technically be the right word, it has gone through almost the whole of its development by way of public consultation and examination, the inspectors' report and the response to that report, which is now with the Secretary of State. If I call it a draft in non-technical language, noble Lords will understand what I mean.
	The present draft was produced under different legislation. I do not believe that it was intended that it would be the statutory plan to which Section 54A of the planning Act would apply. It is therefore not written in a style that makes clear what is or is not policy—some of these notes were made before the examination in public, but they are nevertheless quite fair. At that time the draft ran to 400 pages and it has been said that almost any part of it could be used to justify a development proposal. It does not accord with the draft guidance for regional spatial strategies.
	There is concern that the draft could be used to justify minor proposals and that as a result the Mayor could become involved in detailed debates on minor issues. The Green Paper that preceded the Bill specifically said that there would be no change to the role of the Mayor of London, and public consultation on the draft took place on the basis that it was not a statutory plan. I am also told that comments from boroughs would have been different if they had seen further ahead and known what was coming. They are also concerned that consideration of planning applications will become more complex and costly.
	Obviously, that is not what the Government want; it is diametrically opposed to what the Government want to see. Development control officers would need to consider the contents of the spatial development strategy, the London plan and the relevant unitary development plan before they made a recommendation, thereby adding to the workload. In other words, there will be cost, confusion and delay.
	I believe that the Association of London Government has commented to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on the draft of PPS12. What it said about that draft is relevant to the primary legislation as well as to the guidance and regulations. The association made the point that consultees at the draft stages of the London plan did not regard it as part of the development plan and that it contained significant and detailed policies. As I said, I am making these points because they are as relevant to the primary legislation as to the planning policy statement.
	The association is also urging that the final version of PPS12 should make it clear that "general conformity" should be strategic and not detailed; that justified local variation from strategic policies is entirely appropriate; that by having general conformity, there is an acceptance that there will be areas of non-conformity; and that where a decision or recommendation on general conformity issues has been made at a development plan document inquiry, it should be binding on the Mayor and on the spatial development strategy. The association also refers to the need for a dispute procedure in case of problems.
	What this boils down to, I think, is that we have got out of synch on all of this. As a Member of the London Assembly considering the Mayor's representations to the boroughs on their unitary development plans—of which these are modified examples—I have seen how the Government should be cheered by the way in which the boroughs have approached the next stages of their unitary development plans as if the Bill were in force. They have been taking the sort of view that the Government are encouraging. It certainly makes those documents more accessible, and that is cheering. However, if the borough's planning documents and the Mayor's documents do not properly mesh, there will be a lot of scope for confusion and difficulty. There will also be serious implications for individual applicants.
	My attempt at a solution is to suggest that application of the provision be postponed. The amendment to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, will speak proposes removing the provision entirely. I beg to move.

Baroness Hanham: This is the matter to which I promised to return when we were considering Clause 23 and I put the cart before the horse.
	As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, the Bill proposes a change to the status of the Mayor of London's spatial development strategy, which is known as the London plan, so that the situation in London will be consistent with the Government's proposals for England. Under the Bill, the London plan will have to be a formal part of each borough's unitary development plan, whereas previously the unitary development plan would have had only to be in general conformity with the London plan. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee said, that is the Government's proposal despite their announcing in the 2001 planning Green Paper that they do not propose any change to the Mayor's role in the arrangements for planning in London.
	We believe that it is wrong for the Government to argue that the change in London is necessary for the sake of consistency. The situation in London is unique, and that makes it unsuited to the planning system that the Government are establishing for the rest of England. There will be no regional spatial strategy in London, which will instead have the very much more detailed draft London plan prepared by the Mayor. It is a highly prescriptive document which will inevitably conflict at times with the unitary development plan or the local development plan when that exists.
	We have been told by all the London boroughs that when a conflict does arise between boroughs' plans and the London plan, the more recent document will have greater weight. That will mean that a carefully considered unitary development plan which is the result of months—the Minister may say years—of consultation with local communities can be overridden by the London plan. Moreover, there is every chance that processing planning applications will become more complicated and take more time—the very reverse of the Government's objectives. Each planning application will have to be considered in relation to both the local development plan and the relevant policies in the London plan. Any appeal procedure as the result of refusing a planning application will also be more complex. The appeal inspector will have to weigh up the relative weight of policies in both the local development plan and the London plan.
	These amendments are intended to retain the present relationship between the spatial development strategy and the unitary development plan in London boroughs. Under present arrangements, unitary development plans have to be in general conformity with the Mayor's spatial strategy. Section 344 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 amends the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to reflect the setting up of the revised administrative arrangements for Greater London. Section 344(2) states that part of the unitary development plans should be,
	"in general conformity with the spatial development strategy for the time being in force".
	It also states that Part II of unitary development plans should be,
	"in general conformity with Part I . . . and, in the case of a London borough council, with the spatial development strategy".
	Clause 23(1)(b) of the Bill—this is where we go backwards; we have dwelt on this briefly—states:
	"The local development documents must be in general conformity with . . . the spatial development strategy (if the local planning authority are a London borough)".
	By deleting Clause 32(2)(a) we return to the situation approved by the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and are thus in accordance with Clause 23(1)(b) of the Bill.
	Amendment No. 111ZA takes us away from London, but means that a regional spatial strategy will not be part of a development. Together with the other amendments, it goes beyond London and would mean that both the regional spatial strategy and the spatial development strategy do not form part of a development plan. Consequently, only one subsection would be needed, if that was agreed, rather than both subsections (2) and (3).

Lord Rooker: I shall do my best to satisfy the noble Baroness over the points she raised. Amendment No. 109J would amend Clause 37 to provide expressly that the definition of the development plan in London was the borough's unitary development plans until such time as the Mayor's spatial development strategy is published. The amendment is unnecessary for two reasons: we are confident that the final version of the spatial development strategy will be published before commencement of the Bill—or Act; even it were not, the effect would be the same as the amendment envisages—that the London boroughs' unitary development plans would be the development plan for London until the final version of the spatial development strategy was published.
	Amendment No. 110 would amend Clause 37 so that the Mayor of London's spatial development strategy did not become part of the development plan. Amendment No. 111ZA does the same for regional spatial strategies. Making regional plans across the country a part of the development plan is an important part of strengthening the strategic planning role. It is just as applicable to the Mayor's strategy as it is to a regional strategy.
	If we want effective regional planning then it must have sufficient status for both delivery through local planning and providing a regional context for major development. The current status of the regional planning guidance means, for example, that an out-of-date but statutory structure plan, inconsistent with up-to-date regional planning guidance could, depending on the circumstances, carry more weight in relation to local plans and planning applications. That is a point that I made on day one of the Bill at Second Reading.
	We are committed to a plan-led system—a system with fewer plans, but where those plans really bite. We have to be up to date and reduce ambiguity and uncertainty. Revisions of regional spatial strategies will be subject to extensive involvement, consultation and a public examination, where the Secretary of State decides that that is appropriate. It would be quite wrong to diminish the status of a document that had been through such a rigorous process by not making it part of the development plan. By making the spatial development strategy part of the development plan we are not fundamentally altering the existing relationship between it and unitary development plans.
	Under the current arrangements, the spatial development strategy can still be a "material consideration" when a London borough considers a planning application. The Mayor has powers to direct the refusal of a planning application of potential strategic importance and the policies in the strategy are likely to be a significant factor in that consideration.
	Amendment No. 110A complements Amendment No. 109J. It simply amends Clause 37 to clarify that only after the publication of the spatial development strategy will that form part of the development plan in Greater London. Amendment No. 110B is consequential. I have already explained why Amendment No. 109J is unnecessary; if it is not needed, these amendments do not stand on their own.
	I shall comment on some of the points that were raised. Originally, we were told that consultees did not expect the spatial development strategy to be part of the development plan, so different comments were made. The relationship has not changed much, the procedures for spatial development strategy are eventually the same as those for regional spatial strategy, including examination in public, and the Bill was published in December 2002.
	By making the spatial development strategy part of the development plan, we are not fundamentally altering the relationship between it and the unitary development plan. Under the current arrangements, the strategy can still be a material consideration when the borough considers a planning application. That should not be a problem. It is not the case that the Mayor's strategy will, under the Bill, replace part one of the unitary development plans. The scope and content of the strategy is not affected by the Bill. New local development frameworks for London will be every bit as strategic as part one of the old unitary development plans. In fact, we want the strategic element of a local development framework to be more effective than the "part ones" are at present.
	Nor has the Mayor's spatial development strategy been drafted in a way that makes it incompatible with its role as part of the development plan. The Mayor's draft strategy contains strategic development control policies relevant to determining the acceptability of development proposals, such as policies that set out criteria that the boroughs should have regard to in assessing planning applications, which will further help the strategy set out in the spatial development strategy.
	The final amendment, to which I have not referred—Amendment No. 111—is consequential on Amendment No. 110. It ensures that the development plan documents for each London borough are not also excluded from being part of the development plan. Again, it has no meaning separate from Amendment No. 110, and I hope that I have covered that already.
	I know that we are dealing with a complex area on which there was concern, but I hope that I have addressed the issues adequately. If I have not, I have no doubt that I shall find out on Report.

Baroness Hamwee: I am not sure that my amendment has had the effect that I intended. To say that the final version of the spatial development strategy will be published before commencement of the Act does not answer the points that I was trying to make. My amendment talked in terms not of the publication of the spatial development strategy, but of publications of alterations to it or a new spatial development strategy.
	I may have picked the wrong terminology, but I was trying to postpone the application of this part of the Bill to the point where the spatial development strategy had gone through its first round and had its examination in public. The London boroughs were making their comments at the time that all that was happening. They were taking part in that process as well, but were still making such comments. I sought to postpone the application until we got into round two of the spatial development strategy.
	It would obviously be appropriate for those who feel particularly concerned about how the provisions will bite to have the opportunity to read the Minister's comments. They seemed quite contradictory to the observations made to us on these Benches, and to the Conservatives, as part of the process of discussion with the boroughs. The Minister is looking at something; I do not know whether he wants to say something before I withdraw the amendment.

Lord Rooker: No, I do not propose to say anything else, although I have no doubt that I will on Report.

Baroness Hamwee: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 110 to 111ZA not moved.]

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 111ZB:
	Page 20, line 39, at end insert "and until such local development plan is adopted or approved, the development plan for that area shall be the unitary development plan, structure plan or local plan (as defined in the principal Act) last adopted or approved for the area"

Baroness Hamwee: This amendment provides that until the local development plan referred to is adopted or approved, the development plan shall be the UDP, structure plan or local plan last adopted or approved. This is in order to ensure that while a local development plan is being prepared, there is a development plan for the purposes of development control.
	In the provisions relating to Wales, there is a fall back provision to cover any lacuna, but in England there are transitional—I beg your Lordships' pardon, I am getting this the wrong way round. There is an omission in the Bill as it applies to Wales, in that there is no fall back development plan. There are detailed transitional provisions for England, as I discovered when I was looking for how a county structure plan was dealt with. It took me two hours to find it. This amendment is aimed at covering the interim position in Wales. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: The noble Baroness nearly got me there. I thought, "Hang on a minute, all this is about Wales". That is what Clause 37(4) is about. She made the point in the end that this is adding on for Wales something for England, rather than the other way around, as she started off. This amendment adds to Clause 37, so that set out in existing development plans for Wales will remain the development plans until such time as a new local development plan is adopted or approved.
	The proposed amendment would introduce provisions relating to the transition from the present system of development plans in Wales to the new local development plans set out in Part 6, which I shall come to at another time.
	While the need for such transitional provisions is not in dispute, the best way to deal with them in relation to Wales is not by including them in the Bill, but by leaving them to be dealt with by secondary legislation made by the National Assembly for Wales. The Assembly's power to make such legislation arises under Clause 117(3), which empowers the Assembly to make provision by order in relation to the coming into force of Part 6, and Clause 118(3)(b), which makes it clear that such an order may contain saving and transitional provisions. The Assembly has already begun to consider the content of the necessary transitional arrangements. I hope that the system is able to cope with this. The Assembly is on board, so we do not need to make this amendment.

Baroness Hamwee: As with other amendments, it would be only proper to reflect on what the Minister has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 111ZC:
	Page 21, line 4, at end insert—
	"( ) If to any extent a policy contained in a development plan for an area conflicts with a policy in the regional spatial strategy for the region, the conflict shall be resolved in favour of the policy in the regional spatial strategy."

Baroness Hamwee: In moving this amendment, I will speak also to Amendments Nos. 111ZD and 111ZE. Amendment No. 111ZC seeks to provide a means of resolving conflict between local development plans and regional spatial strategies. Clause 37(5) provides the procedure for dealing with conflicts between policies in the development plan. This is to suggest that provision is made for conflicts between the two documents.
	This was debated in Committee in the Commons on 21 January 2003, when the Minister said at col. 254 that it would be wrong for the regional spatial strategy to predominate, when it might have been published up to five years before. The Minister said that the Government were not immediately convinced by the amendment, which was suggested to us by the Law Society, as drafted at that stage. He said that the amendment said that,
	"RSSs reign in perpetuity uber alles, no matter whether they were published last year or five years ago . . . There has to be a degree of temporal hierarchy".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee G, 21/1/03; Cols 254–55.]
	German and Latin in one paragraph. But what about the practice? Should not the Bill prescribe the hierarchy—the Minister will know how little I like prescription—in order to avoid difficulty if there is a conflict? Mr Wilshire said that his headmaster had told him that there was no substitute for common sense. I wish that statute law worked to the same rules as his headmaster. Can the Minister help me? I beg to move.

Baroness Hanham: Amendment No. 111ZE, which is tabled in my name, is grouped with Amendment No. 111ZC. Clause 37(1) states:
	"A reference to the development plan in any enactment mentioned in subsection (7) must be construed in accordance with subsections (2) to (5)".
	Subsection (7) lists the relevant enactments, which include this Bill, the planning Acts, the Land Compensation Act 1961 and the Highways Act 1980. In addition, paragraph (c), which this amendment would remove, lists,
	"any other enactment relating to town and country planning".
	What are the other enactments? The list seems comprehensive, and it seems unnecessary to add paragraph (c), which is open to very broad interpretation. If some Acts are to be listed, why not list the other possible enactments? Moreover, do all the enactments referring to development plans necessarily relate to town and country planning?

Lord Rooker: I have before me a wonderful paragraph, but, as I have just said to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, I could not possibly read it out, as it would never make sense in Hansard. I shall respond first to Amendment No. 111ZE and then deal with the amendments in reverse order. The short answer to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, is that in addition to the Bill, the planning Acts, the Land Compensation Act 1961 and the Highways Act 1980 are some examples. We cannot see what purpose Amendment No. 111ZE would serve. It would mean that if a piece of town and country planning legislation slipped through the net, despite our best efforts, all references in it to a development plan would have a different meaning from that in other legislation. That would not help anybody; it would cause confusion.
	I do not know who dreamt up Amendment No. 111ZD, which would replace "shall" for "must". What is the difference?

Baroness Hamwee: I should have explained that. Section 54A, which was introduced by the 1991 Act, uses the terminology that I sought to import through the amendment. It is a lawyers' point. If there is a difference, let us know what it is, and if there is not, let us have the same provision so that there is no doubt.

Lord Rooker: Oh well, I shot myself there. This is not an argument about "shall" and "may"; it is about "shall" and "must". If there is an inconsistency that needs to be put right, we will have a look at it. I am sorry for my disparaging remarks or thoughts about that amendment.
	Amendment No. 111ZC is not acceptable for the simple reason that it could require a conflict to be resolved in accordance with an older policy. Newer, more up-to-date policy would be overwritten by older policy in some instances. The existing wording of Clause 37(5) ensures that, where regard is to be had to the development plan in making the planning decision, that decision will be made in line with the most recent part of the development plan unless material considerations dictate otherwise. That is entirely consistent with one of the key aims of our reforms: tackling the problems caused by plans that are out of date.
	If there is a concern to preserve the strategic importance of the regional spatial strategy, or revisions to it, this is already safeguarded by the Bill. Any local development documents, including development plan documents, must be in general conformity with the regional spatial strategy. If there is any difference between a development plan document and a regional spatial strategy, that difference will have to be tested through the independent examination, which is a very useful tool. There will have to be good reasons for that.
	I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment. I will look at Amendment No. 111ZC to make sure that we have got that matter right.

Baroness Hanham: I do not want to be difficult. I am never difficult. But I would like an answer to the following point.
	Subsection (c) refers to:
	"any other enactment relating to town and country planning".
	What would those enactments be?
	So far, there is a list that includes "this Act" and the "planning Acts". That is clear. What would "any other enactment" be?

Lord Rooker: I gave examples when I stood up. The Land Compensation Act 1961 and the Highways Act 1980. Is that not a good enough answer? I do not have another answer.

Baroness Hanham: That is a rotten answer. When I introduced it, I pointed out that the list already included the Highways Act and the Land Compensation Act. The Minister then throws those back at me. I want to know what the "other enactments" are. If anyone has any idea of what those might be, it would be enormously helpful.

Baroness Hamwee: Perhaps I may explain to the Minister what I regard as a practical issue regarding this matter. These days one often uses a computer to search for information. If the legislation that is affected is not listed in terms, it will not be found. A very diligent lawyer may work out that this is the effect, but the average "cooking solicitor" may not.

Lord Rooker: I apologise. I am guilty of not having done my homework. I have it in my notes, but I had not actually read subsection (7). I realise that what I just said is already there for the noble Baroness to read. My noble friend Lord Bassam had said that I did not have to read it out because the noble Baroness has done it.
	I am reliably informed that subsection (7)(c) is a catch-all to cover everything. On thinking about it, that is quite unsatisfactory because we ought to know what the other enactments are. I shall take advice on this in time for the next stage to see whether we can be more precise than,
	"any other enactment relating to town and country planning".
	There could be obscure legislation, but to be frank, the draftsmen working on these Bills go through everything. Rarely is anything missed out. Once again, I apologise for the flippant way I dealt with this.

Baroness Hamwee: We are all at the same point of exhaustion. I thank the Minister for his various responses. I think that we should look at Amendment No. 111ZC when we feel a little recovered. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 111ZD and 111ZE not moved.]
	Clause 37 agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.
	House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past nine o'clock.